>> welcome to the san francisco city and county board of appeals meeting this evening at 5:00 pm., wednesday, november 1, 2023. president swig public school the proceeding offers and the joined by vice president lopez and commissioner lemberg and commissioner trasvina and commissioner eppler and jan to provide legal advice i'm julie and joined by representatives from the city departments presenting from the board this evening in front the zoning administrator and matthew green

for the department of building inspection turn off or silence all devices not to disturb the meeting and appellant are given 7 minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal and people alleviate and members of the public what are not affiliated with no rebuttal and time limited to two minutes mr. listeningly will give you a verbal warning and 4 votes to grant or grant a rehearing or request if you have questions about a rehearing please e-mail staff at sfgov and participants

are importance and sfgov is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and will have public hearings and sfgov is providing caption and go to sfgov and will be rebroadcast on that channel 26 and link is found at sfgov and now public comment can be provided one in-person, two, go to our website you may also watch live at www.sfgovtv.org and click on hearing and then https://us02web.zoom.us/j/ 81726537436 or. >> access by telephone: call: 1-669-900-6833 webinar id: 817 2653 7436. >> again sfgov is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen to

block our phone number first dial star 67 and the phone number and dial star 9 to o so we know you want to speak and brought in when it is your turn and maybe dial star 6 to unmute and a of our legal assistant will help and live bolstering on live tv for that people turn off our voices and if any of the parents are on zoom need technical assistance make a chat or send an e-mail to the 0 sfgov and the chat function can't be used to provide public comment we'll take public comment from

those members of the public that are physically present in the hearing room now swear in or affirm my member of the public may speak pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance and wish to have your testimony raise your hand. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> okay. thank you. >> if you are participant and not speaking please put your speaker on speaker on agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. i do know we have a speaker here for public comment mr. bruno and i put the comment before you commissioners.

>> yes. please and you are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. >> may i place this for three minutes. >> we won't start your time until you put on the overhead and it says - >> so i know. >> that's fine (microphone distorted) thank you for helping. >> you're welcome and i punishment your time again my name is marking a longer-term resident of on september 27th i testified by an illegal adu attempt by my landlord for the third 7, 8, 9 not for the tenant three live in the building that

building and city and county of san francisco would not know the laundry what about cannabis dispensary have the opportunity the plans that are falls i'm here for the second part a permit hearing regarding plumbing why is that that the city of san francisco penalize a property owner they have avoided the law and misused a permit why is the present another permit this was asked by all of you at the hearing not an eir relevant and not disrespect to the department of building inspection that is exactly what is going on in plumbing my owner has done four illegal you plumbing projects since late

2022 still in abatement this um, plumbing public works i did from 822 is still active the contractor says self-defense active today and when 27 at the hearing mr. green promised the senior inspector will go to the building and make sure that things were all. okay. many of us asked specifically how do we know no plunking in other units what about done illegally offer ousted i outside the scope that are plumbing at my building and despite that the senior inspector that mr. green had report to you, you asked for a

report mr. green got somebody from plundering to report no problem - here this is no problem at the building the three units in in question are on 4/7 this is where (bell ringing) the water heaters are being installed and no permit in the rear unit it is in the true plenty of work in the rear unit what was told to you in the landlord is asking for more permits they're under noah umbrellas. >> any other general public comment please raise your hand if you're on dome no one.

>> 2. commissioner comments & questions. and commissioner lemberg please. i would like to address something that i said in the hearing last week. last wednesday on reflective any comments for last week the board of appeals didn't not interpret the law i didn't mean not on argument we shouldn't consider by stemmed from a series of cases from the zoning administrator not allowed to interpret state law by comment was not regarding that i rvkd we didn't hear last week um, was um, a very different situation than the one i had addressed previously and i welcome discussion at the board level that that case from last week

resumes that's all i have to say. thank you. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. >> and i have a question for president swig. with regards to the mr. bruno who spoke to so i realize we're not supposed to be commenting on public comment i realize the matter he came to us before tonight we know we have attempted to dispose of and there is no appeal pending. but this is the second time or more i've heard we think we have resolved something in a certain way and one of the parties or one of the witnesses has wondering i'm pleased that the departments are here and hoping what we're taking action they'll follow-up and resolve any distributorships but president

swig anyone else we can do to make sure that the public or the individuals concerned about a matter we addressed would be dealt with you. >> sure. >> (clearing throat) hoping the rent from dbi has listened to the public comment tonight and will take that under add environment if you want to appeal if we can as a board show concern by writing a letter to dbi indicating bruno and dbis attention to that matter in case it requires more review. >> i suggest we have to

represent represent /* representative if you suggest that is the best way that is fine and dandy with me if mr. bruno didn't get and the satisfactory suggestion and before the constructive thoughts and has to come back again probably will be the result as we write and note saying we have - still unrequired with regards to the action taken by dbi but if mr. green if you wouldn't mind you can make a quick comment be careful we're not in a public hearing and . >> i think we should get a

written response. >> let's get a written response so we don't get into a public hearing so thank you for the voices. >> it is that satisfactorily with you and you i'm confident the the president has heard it and satisfied with that approach. thank you. >> thank you for bringing it up i'm sure mr. bruno is satisfied with that. >> any public comment on this item? >> we are in commissioner comments and questions he is if you want to provide public comment mr. bruno. >> he'd like you to, leave i was status quo any public comment on this item commissioner questions or comments item two.

>> you are allowed yes. >> i'm sorry. >> on item 2 which is? >> i did not hear. >> the comments made by president swig and okay. i can i can use the time for a minute to say any part time where i would for 36 years was never invited and asked to look at 6 units in our building the report mentioned three unit what about write live that matter like that black hole that is a piece of paper that is was done in january january a big black drill i mean, i think that is small about the constant harassment we all know that there are many people in the city and maybe right didn't

believe in rent control seniors like me our average rent is around $800 mine is seven hundred and 51 you would have on or to be a saint that walks on water you have to be a saint not want somebody to actually leave you won't have to do anything illegal but disturb their quiet assignment that's why i wrote in no uncertain terms that as piecemeal attempt to avoid having respect full of tenants that mr. joe duffey asked him to do years ago and no uncertain terms please, mr. land as a city go to our tenants and know had

is occurring this use of pledge allegiance issue to disturb the tenant is not a small one a but a large one and last time mr. green we all need as city permission from the land to go inside of unit in all codes they're ideal because of board of supervisors called right of entry at the beginning in the authority in charge in the case the board of appeals have reason offers to believe the code is violated you can enter the unit. >> 30 seconds (bell ringing) why do we need the permission of land and yet a lot of circles on the last board meeting the

gentleman was so kind to see those units are worked on without a permit unit without a permit there must be some recourse for the tenants to go and remedy this situation that's all we're asking for (bell ringing) >> any further public comment i don't see any >> 3. adoption of minutes: discussion and possible adoption of the october 25, 2023, minutes. >> commissioners anybody have any recommendations comments if not. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> any public comment on this motion please raise your hands motion to adopt the minutes from commissioner lemberg. >> >> items submitted by the mayor. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg airs and commissioner eppler at the

president swig item 4 i don't see the appellants we got to call he was on hi way. so- >> next item mr. wong is not here so we'll hear the case and put you after that. >> sorry for the inconvenience we have to wait around until his arrival. >> so move on to item number 5 appeal no. appeal no. appeal no.

appeal no. appeal no. appeal no. 23-044. >> 5. 223 anderson street. appealing the issuance on september 18, september 18, existing bathroom at existing primary suite and convert into a family room) permit no. 2022/1027/5336. >> and we'll hear in the appellant first ms. dehapiot. >> you have 7 minutes we'll not start the time until you get set

up. >> first ms. galviso. >> i think that is important to speak i think i somehow important to see but i somehow brought it down. >> here we go. >> yeah. i have if you can speak into the microphone unless we can't hear. >> i'll start with photos of my home south of 223 anderson street and i owned my home since 1999. and two things about the photo is that you'll see one of the older section of san

francisco and i'm on the south slope you see? and the property north of me that was issued a permit is north. so it sits higher quite a bit higher. as you can see from my truck advertise it is a real slant what i wanted to show about my house is that there pretty much the same on the block okay. and berno heights can say gone real intense gentrification i was looking for my community from honolulu and a large community of philippines i'm the only philippine left on the block one of three residents of color left

i mean and so i think part of changes is not just the demographic it is really the whole architecture all character of the neighborhood that is changing. um, well, i think the building department we are once known as the village in the city that is quickly quickly sdroir because we're beginning to look at a suburb the city every other highway looks to sewer ban didn't look like he people's homes once a characteristic of um, berno heights so um, so that's one photo and the other photos

(rustling of papers.) let me put this up sorry about that it is hand drawn my house is a simply plan you enter on the left-hand side is, you know. the parlor and in those old homes i mean as many people as large of families fit into one or two bedrooms to. there is bedroom one and two and the sunroom i'll show you and the staircase in the bathroom the sunroom and the whole part was added in the 20s it was built with no plumbing and electricity that is added the kitchen is the center the center a huge the largest room the center of the house it is the distinctly feature of the house that's the picture. what happened here?

>> yes. here's the picture of my kitchen. oh, no back, back and what you'll notice i should have taken a picture of window it is three-quarters of that oversized window the reason, of course, if you're building a highway with no electricity you want as much natural light so when the built the addition to bring in more light the the other thing is you'll notice you'll notice i have a lot of mirroring and phil peeps have their own version and a relative said when you walk into the front door you look at out that

is bad that means all your good luck and money will go straight out to the back she suggested to divert the kitchen window. and so she kind of saved the deal if it's bad luck this house will not do but she should no there are ways to remedy this so the the other thing is is the houses in berno heights the catholic churches opened this not the last mexican land grant and the lots were very narrow and the small as they could; right? but you'll notice the rooms are very small. see this and this is the sunroom. oh, wait, wait. so darn

what is had an happened here. >> you have time. >> oh. >> so oh, you see i know i have oversized furniture but how small the rooms rooms are when you move into an old home in berno heights your house is small and the rooms are maul that is what you have bought. and i think you adjust to that. and rather than make a building over - to change it's whole character that is what i'm seeing self berno heights well that is destroys the architectural and the character

of the houses and the neighborhood but one thing i did want to say is - um, i had another photo. here we go with those photos. >> i don't know had happened there. but i think the major point i'm trying to make is that, you know. you moved into a small house and, you know. i've gone to several meeting in the berno heights high school historic society that is when cows were embracing; right? on the hill the house next to me 223 anderson street is carriage house (bell ringing) >> what happens the woman that

once lived there in nicaragua i've visited here the house was first level you went detain two levels but downstairs i said this is a strange house. and that's what made me think hey that was associated with this property at one time my house that's why i think (bell ringing) adding. >> thank you that's time. thank you. ms. galviso we have a question from commissioner lemberg from you. >> i found your testimony compelling i want to hone in a little bit on um, why kind of what is behind this appeal from reviewing the plans submitted by your neighbors by the um,

respondent here. what specifically is going to be the impact from their proposed plans on the window you're talking about. >> as you know properties on the ceda on the north side we're about that far apart so if you're going to build a second addition you're basically walking everything architecturally putting up another story that's what i'm be looking at out my kitchen window that window is the only window on the north side of my property that is it i don't have any window on the bedroom or bathroom that's the only window on the north side like i said, it is really the heart of the of my home. and um, i mean, it was

just i mean, i just find the idea crushing when i talked to the window no, no jane that will be okay the architect will look at this i do no look at any window and think of a second structure second floor going up i'm not be able to see sky and know what i walk out of my bedroom into the kitchen to know what the weather is like, you know.. and that's one thing but really is natural light to be able to have that yeah - >> thank you. >> it is actually, i'm the first house had accelerator in berno heights. >> thank you you may be seated we'll hear in from the permit

holder. >> do you have it. >> the presentation claire you have it to alex. >> one moment we'll get it set up and not start the time. >> hand it to alex

(coughing) >> thanks your patience anguish thank you for pulling this up. >> as you can see. >> overhead please or yeah - thank you. >> hi, everybody thank you for - this will go quickly this through the project and the reason we don't have impact with the neighbors here. is first one is the options we want it to be respectful it the neighborhood our house was not aligned with the street like one of the - we

wanted to say within the character of the house and minimize the impact so we're proposing to build smaller by code with respect to that element and we're about three hundred and 40 square feet what was loud by code and also wanted to minimize the impact on the street you can see the house is pharmaceutical. >> with less height and so the public can hear you. >> help- >> (multiple voices). >> your case. >> thank you. >> you can move the computers if you want. >> that's okay that is much better. okay. >> so we can see the house is smaller on the other two own the side of the house we're trying to maintain harmony in the neighborhood so we found it house 10 years ago we had too

small children and put our son is 12 years old a you're daughter a 11 and need more space we're trying to get them their own bedrooms they like the neighborhood and we're trying to make sure we have good space for them right now. we are just like wanting to process as we - we went through all the steps with the building department and notification with the neighbors and do not engage in that process and provided any input to the process we're just worked with the neighbors to make sure we have a good solution and looking to get the construction and again, time is against us to make sure the kids can have the

proper space to grow up. >> and when it comes to the view and a couple of things we want to point out first is the view from the window has to be providing a window picture this is from our side of the property this is what we see in the windows and this is the view based on is height of houses it is just the ways to view to speak of the window facing north no natural light we are happy to put a coat of paint to improve the light in the kitchen this is what we need to do in summary we are trying 0 just make sure

we're respectfully the neighborhoods and we are pressed for space right now with our kids so lots of energy to keep the family plugged into the neighborhood and have reasonable impact for this property. it is what it is. >> one from president swig and one from- thank you very much for your testimony how long have you think working on this project. >> about two years we saturday in september of 2021. >> there was a three 11 notice you met with the eastbound neighbors. >> we had neighbors come and . >> how many neighbors showed up. >> one showed up at and one from their bedroom and decided that was a minimum view he said us to build. >> (multiple voices.) >> and the new other feedback

from the neighbors. >> no otherwise people are just happy for us. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> skes commissioner trasvina thank you and i reviewed the material i provided and heard you now and hair hear you talk about you want to minimize the impact and how many relevant neighbors are related to our property one-on-one side and one on the other; correct? >> yeah two- >> (multiple voices). >> there is like behind and across the street as well. >> okay. a um, he stated you want to maintain good relations with our neighbors i'm wondering can you describe you're effort

to hear from or resolve the appellants concerns? >> so we had heard that like was planning on raising an issue and there are tenants this is hard to get ahold of her, she didn't want to talk to me. >> i'm sorry you said she didn't live there. >> no, she doesn't permanently live there. >> and you told president swig this is project has been going on for a couple of years. >> how many times have you seen her. >> maybe 28 or thirty times combined and other than the standard process to reach out to neighbors have you tried other ways to reach out to her. >> yeah. engage in

conversations on the streets show didn't want to engage with us. >> can you describe one? >> yeah. i just had an encounter two weeks ago or three weeks ago and said hi she jumped on me - by yelling at me. >> and your view that from what you, surmise the have had from her window didn't provide her a view of anything other than your wall what what you can tell. >> no, it didn't. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. i can be seat okay. now hear from the planning department. >> good to see.

>> corey teasing from the planning department and as stated the building permit on appeal for an addition to a single-family home in the rh one and berno heights for one horizontal addition setback from the rear building if berno heights has some special controls this project is within the addendum and those controls limit those sides and special designs if berno heights guidelines like el see streets devolves to the guidelines which

guidelines apply and the permit went out offer february and march i know that is appellant was aware of the project and engage with the planner and the planner made them aware of the progress and making sure they had the materials and were informed by options to ask for a determination review and i don't know the rationale behind that as noticed noted the primary cancer is the north facing kitchen window and on the challenge is that given the fact that window is already in a very small setback and the subject property it uphill slightly the property owner the permit holder made the point any vertical

addition will have the same impact on that window that receives a little bit of kind of secondary light there um, by not like an open window with a view or with direct light to the north of the property overall from the departments perspective the existing home for the permit is a modified a one story like a half story below there is an overall modified one story education not with the full footprint the building not going to the preapplication, etc. and it was found to be with the guidelines so the permit was properly um, issued and we respectfully request you deny the appeal and uphold the permit

i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you, president swig has a question. >> what welcome back mr. teague we missed you thank you for attending tonight. so i know that the glen park neighborhood is a special condition you mentioned them and said this was not in that area of um, a restriction any special restrictions this building is subject to. >> the only thing i finding referring to mass reduction that is in berno heights. >> (multiple voices.) >> most of lights subject to controls throughout berno heights but well within those controls. >> i don't think we had a berno

heights since fellow commissioner farmed i know a few hard to understand. can you give us a short tutorial on what the special conditions might be in berno heights. >> in the 80s was very much a community led effort to have a special use integrity established in some ways gets it's codes for berno heights to recognize the nature of that area that is small lots a lot of a lot of only 70 feet deep and historically a lot of homes are small and a lot of homes didn't have parking because of when we were built, etc. trying to maintain a fairly small-scale for design for example, had things like rear yards

requirement but this is unique that says you look at all the requirement and berno is thirty feet instead of 40 but all the controls and height and rear yard have an envelope and that can like a theory square feet take that off and again, hammer home to keep those buildings modist and elsie has its own that anderson is not a special

design in the heights. >> in your opinion but you're review the plan this addition don't - come close to what requires a surveillance variance and could be that large than asked for and not subject to a variance. >> yes. a few hundred square feet larger before you, you ran up a massive reduction. >> to clients could be bigger and could have been bigger under the special conditions that cost in the neighborhood and that equals had you consider a modist expansion of this property?

>> correct. >> no further questions hear from the building department. >> good evening president swig and vice president lopez matthew green representing the department of department of building inspection for a single-family home that was reviewed by the planning department and the puc and the permit was reviewed approved and issued properly and come applies and dbi ask the permit be upheld i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> on the question asked of mr. teague and in the neighborhood no special conditions with relate. >> just standard thanks and

everything it is compliant. >> thank you. >> you may be seated. >> any public comment on this item? >> anyone in the room? anyone on zoom raise our hand 2004 public comment so move on to rebuttal ms. galviso you have three minutes to address the board. >> i think we saw a drawing what it it looks like we'll get a different - this photo is a false one. when i look out my kitchen window i see sky. okay. i i some big trees on the street so that is a very biased photo the fact to add that structure makes a three story house and i saw that house when they had the

openhouse. they turned the bedroom on the ground level apparently into their office space can't be they're other children's bedroom i don't think their children are that krafrm into the house i've seen the house whether we alternated it but want to say something about maintaining good relations with the neighbor. on a relationship has been distinctly hostile in the very beginning. nothing nothing to do with me when they first moved in and saw me i think they thought i was a tenant and for the to it

property owner they started a campaign you can look it up in the police records and the animal control how many times they called the police out to my house and how many times time they called the animal offers out it was a real campaign not just a couple of calls the police finally had to explain to her i have to dogs they bark she made is sound like she lied and said i kept them in a dune begun maybe good thing my dogs were behind me with the animal control officer was at the door. >> 30 seconds.

>> i mentioned there was no want or no desire for good relations with me. like i said, i that they clearly thought they were moving into an all white neighborhood they disappointed i was part of neighborhood. >> thank you now hear from the permit holder. >> all right. i'm not sure what is say about the for the respective but be extremely open-minded and on the relationship it was a tough relationship at the beginning and to go back on the dogs

barking all night we had dogs barking all night and not able to sleep that was traumatic so the police officers gave a lecture to them and that is stopped the dogs being left outside all night and the neighbors were in the same situation we were facing this situation we're not the only ones. i'm not here to fight with ms. galviso but move past we're not here for that but trying to be as open-minded as possible and try to reach a relationship keep it positive in this situation. >> nothing else to add. >> okay. thank you, i don't see any questions? we'll hear for

the planning department nothing further dbi so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> vice president lopez you want to start. >> sure, thank you. >> it is relatively straightforward if my perspective have a neighborhood with special conditions. the development project meets those special conditions. so i'll be prepared to deny the appeal um, based on the fact that from my perspective the permit was properly issued. >> is that your motion use that as motion. >> sure i'll that is my motion. >> any other commissioners anything to add? >> seeing none, oh, commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. >> i concur with the legal rachel norton of vice president lopez and unfortunately don't see a pass through granting this

appeal i want to make a note this was not a question he i want to commend both sides for different reasons and ms. galviso was one of the better testimonies and the property owner or permit holders brief was the single brief i've seen in my 18 months not drafted by an attorney and thank you for citing the pages of your plan not seen in 18 months from any attorney in town or parties so thank you for presenting both of our cases tonight and i appreciate your hard work on that. >> thank you commissioner trasvina. >> we have permits and plans before us and i have not heard

any legal barrier to begin it going forward and the departments have weighed in and either concur on that judgment. >> thank you very much. okay. >> we have motion from vice president lopez to deny the appeal and hold the permit what was properly issues that admission commissioner trasvina, aye. >> commissioner lemberg, aye. >> commissioner eppler, aye. >> and president swig the appeal was denied and mr. wong is here we'll move on to item is here we'll move on to item 4. >> 4. appeal no. 23-043: 1334 12th avenue. appealing the issuance on september 7, 2023,to eric hall and helene favre, of a site permit (horizontal addition to the rear on three levels and a 12-foot pop-out) permit no. 2021/05/06/9906. >> so note own october

>> so note own october the note: on october 25, note: on october 25, 2023, upon a motion by commissioner trasviña, the board voted 4-1 (president swig dissented) to continue this item to november 1, approved site plans and to allow the inclusion into the record of the appellant's brief, which had formerly been rejected for being untimely. so welcome mr. wong. >> commissioner lemberg. >> before we get started i remember last week had a tela perimeter. >> yes. mr. wong cancelled that he was not able to hear with the headphones a okay. thank you. >> if you can speak into the microphone mr. wong take your time. >> good evening honorary board members and thank you for your

time i'm still a little bit - >> um, president swig and commissioner and staff govern first housekeeping your staff and officials are accredited to this board i appreciate as fact findsers to glean this and finally wish to extend my thanks to have the plans digitized and sent to me in pdf for the most part after assuring president swig he has those plans and sent them direct via e-mail in the

board has any additional questions or need additional information i'm happy to address that it was only or less to the effort that i realized this case is not as complex rests on three questions but preface president swig - an article for design review specifically about san francisco. and the second paragraph county administrator challenges to the departments at this point the location proclamation relationship between the guidelines are not apparent to planners the public or who present this and some can be found in design elements of general plan but rarely applied

for organizational consistency you see where i'm going with that, i stating i don't think i'm stating anything that people will disagree with. so they direct impact the growth of development of san francisco that is impact on the broader issues are having a function as a massive amount of data that are pubically accessed with that in mind many cases have been brought before in board appear complex but you step back and view them from a different perspective are are answered by simple questions this case is no different the decision of the board will be likely in evidence

and the relevant issue as hand the body as this board and other commissions not through in any decision of boards themselves lack the opportunity to cross-examine those who present evidence. evidence is maybe approved or disproved something than false has presented over the could you say not in evidence unless supported by facts they are determined relevant in the case any statement is brief and mr. halls falls short of has anticipated neither one of us appropriately have evidence to support the statement made statement made without evidence port whether

fact in the opposing parties say something different how do you determine had to do it is based on credibility by will be far better if each of us backed up our statements and if not the case we all learn and make mistakes and i've learned from this so the preproclamation meeting is a requirement requires a meeting and outreach to the neighborhood is conducted by the permit household with dates and times the meeting can be specified at the location is specified. what is to be done. specified that a person can conduct a meeting give a

presentation this is the scope of the project and the plans are available to be looked at. and viewed by those that - and may request for plans and thereby glibd and presented appropriately with paperwork that is necessary to proof the preproclamation the facts the permit holder made this case in purchasing 1334 12th avenue and the permit holder has the choice to exercise that right and follows the policy of dbi the

preexplanation and a mailing was sent out if nobody came to the meeting that was to provide the documentation that is needed it was done - the project application and people attend that meeting now an obligation to those who are in attendance to be ready for the meeting at the location to sit down and the plans ready (bell ringing) copies are ready and people are ready to discuss that plan and

the idea plans are sent out my question should be noted and concerns noted as well. the question should be addressed if not should be left blank. >> thank you. >> that's time. >> okay. we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. >> mr. wong. >> yeah. and we continued this matter on my motion. >> right. >> in order too, so the appellant can review the site plan. >> have you reviewed. >> (multiple voices). >> yes. i have and can you tell us- >> (multiple voices). >> from the site plan. >> still a bunch of errors two are pretty major.

>> sorry. >> so- >> >> the question is um, whether or not the height where the roofline is to - my sisters building initiation to the permit holders building and this is my sisters building here and rests right at the base of the sloped roof of permit holder okay. and the same situation in the back of this she has a totally flat roof the only parapet for drainage as you can see on there and the rest of it is totally flat in on the front and back (unintelligible) and

sorry. >> thank you alex. >> that's little front with the tile. here's another photo of that. >> a little bump of title that's about it. >> so is your question answered commissioner? >> sore. >> i asked- >> (multiple voices). >> whether you seen them and you told me, you seen them and describing mr. wong if we focus on this item. so based on just this one page i can list of

number of errors so i mentioned earlier that the plan the permit holder roof rests on the roof of my sisters property and if you go from there or here if it is way down here the permit holder or the architect shows three as being like 5 feet taller here so this is a discriminate of seeing a blue sky that is not comparable impossible because of the 45 degree rule that is you start at the point - the obstruction the top and draw down to the middle mid point of the window the person is hit. >> blocks light and a 45 degree

am at the top of the roof not hitting her house at all >> i try to understand what you're saying the discriminate is incorrect. >> correct that's correct. >> and the correct depictions. >> in our judgment and view that that is illegally blocking. >> (multiple voices). >> okay. that's fine. >> he's luxmanor elementary school as the house is 8 feet taller i can show that and the second efficiency and 4 foot setback we were showing that was 15 feet long when it was 18 and 6 windows in that setback. and

um, there within the 15 feet the first 15 feet of the setback and at the depicted as you - it's 28 feet sorry within the first 15 feet so the windows is further total back of the building than they are. >> so other than your statement that the drawing is incorrect what is the real live impact of this- >> (multiple voices). >> the loss of light. when the the other thing is. >> here's the model. >> that's fine that answers my question. >> i kept staring at that and couldn't find out what was wrong but that made the building 20 feet tall that is only 25 at least. >> so on the drawings it is 25

and in real life thirty. >> it is 20. >> in real life it is 20 on the map. >> (multiple voices). >> the drawings are all 20 to thirty feet tall and differences between every page where it - so should be 45 degree angle make sure if 60 to 35 degrees they get flatter and shorter. >> thank you that helps. >> it is completely inconsistent. >> you can be seated we'll hear from the permit holder. >> do you want your earth. >> for the. >> let's let mr. wong pickup his materials and then - >> he's on zoom a welcome you

have 7 minutes. >> all right. letting get my timer this helps me a little bit. >> are you guys ready to go. >> we ready. >> welcome i'm the architect. for them i thank you, guys the staff and commissioners and um, everyone who is helped me through this process we started in 2018 so why are we here we heard two arguments that the process westbound corrupt by the planning department and the applications are wrong the dimensions are off i'm sending you case 3 you see by the yellow highlights um, was in

september 15th of, 2022 and back to 1, 2, 3 items up at the top setback the upper floors and setback and pause the time please who do you want to control. >> (multiple voices). >> i'm sorry a minute and half but, yes. >> the drawings are you presenting the drawings are you sharing it? >> oh, my god i'm sorry. >> no you're not. >> wait a minute. >> should i restart the time. >> well- >> (multiple voices). >> take the seconds - hold on please. give him an extra 30 seconds. >> we'll fight it. >> can you see my screen. >> can you make that larger because you see on the left you have - can you do full screen.

>> there is my full screen. >> try go back to the next page we did see that okay. perfect. >> add 30 seconds. >> start over is that- >> (multiple voices). >> is that okay? >> president. >> we'll do a minimum so the process two items we talked about. there we go page number 3. this is from um, david winning lose staff report on 1, 2, 3 i can see the upper floors the setback iss at the those are three options we recommended to the applications and the two of us is neighbors and us and the

planning staff to try to bring some resolution, and, secondly, the resolution we read the resolution to the neighbors to the north the professional architects are are - option we have aren't amenable to through the items not very um, congenial not correct and planning commission after two meetings unanimously reached a decision 6 vote decision. here's some data really quick and drawings here is a-1 the site plan. i highlighted the detailed yellow which is now exploded and the data you might want to look at

later on regarding square footage and real setbacks and such. secondly, i hear i am on page a-8 on the left-hand side is the planning commission actual drawings and on the raise your hand is the site permit own the tall the dimensions that correlate on each side of drawings. same way with the a-3 for the planning commission on the left-hand side and site drawings on the right-hand side you might want to look at the second floor that is revised based on the decisions has a light well on the notch with the wong residence and this is a

great picture to show you the wong residence in pink. in white and the gray house the architects house and wong house is directly south i can see the shadow line um, of the wong house that is about 80 percent of the art. and the box of the extension box of you a new addition is two feet two inches below and additional drainage that the appellant was talking about mr. wong was talking about will be resolved and area drains and such. secondly, there is

their blank wall. um, and that is, you know. here you might want to go back to the three windows or 6 windows - we're trying to create and light well, there top floor is higher by the windowsills so between the current and second floor, and, secondly, this one is at lovely as wongs house they talk about that we never got into she loves that is great i want to say that property has not been - i'll be topped off to the second level 10 feet that increases the shadows on the property and first and lastly, is this one

looking south on the wong residence. the wong residence is one of few houses on that block that extends to the front of the by the way, all the other houses similarly to those and exactly the same in elevation and everything but 8 feet we're 8 feet behind as the architects house that creates shadow and some nice shade that concludes my presentation. >>. thank you. >> you have one minute and 45 seconds did you want to add anything mr. hall. >> hello yes can you hear me? so i'm the owner of the house and actually have been working own that since 2019 and yeah due

to covid a long time to get through this process the process has changed a couple of times when i was trying to submit so we're going on i feel like 4 years, you know. i need to go through building inspection and find a incarcerating like 6 or seven years, you know, for an extension of a house i'm within the codes and guidelines it is very long time to try to raise two kids and any wife in a small house. i was expecting this to be like two years but now 6 or seven years it unfortunate but i'm plugging away i have attempted as i would like to work with john and nancy. you know. trying to come up with.

>> accommodations they've been reluctant to bumped - 30 seconds what else can i say it is difficult i barely see nancy they have a new garbage there so, you know. i see her very infrequently have different homes in the city so i'm not sure this year there all the time. so that's kind of a challenge. (bell ringing) >> thank you that's time and appreciate 2 and we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you good evening, again. president swig corey teague zoning administrator for the planning department i want to acknowledge that some of the cases are really challenging and

the department and the commission definitely does as much as we can to balance the code requirements and design guidelines and issues and obviously, the interpersonal issues between the parties always a challenge. this one was a challenging case but i think in review and at the planning commission um, i don't know if members from the planning commission hearings with a challenge. so, you know. unfortunate but acknowledging a lot of information and issues that presented on this case if you don't cover everything let me you know i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> this is a single-family home in a rh 2 zoning district that was submitted in 2021 the project to do a rear addition

and three story addition and one story pop out fully code compliant them variance and a direction review was filled the project sponsor made changes added light well adjacent to the patent side setback and reduced the depth of the second floor and added a privacy screen along the southern property line to address some of the issues. i can go into more design specific issues if i like but overall the planning department and planning commission given the native of the proposal that it was consistent with the residential guidelines and the planning commission did unanimously vote to not take direction review and

approve as revised for the direction review hearing you see before i today with the minor expectation that after the dr hearing the plans were slightly revised to address corrections that came up. and i think those are being discussed included more adequately talking about the department of southern neighbors light well. but the plans that were ultimately issued were what it in question last week had those reviewed to make sure those are as adequate as we demonstrated and hang on i'll let the counterpart for dbi to speak they were adequate as far as is information with with all that again project is fully code compliment and went through

a fairly contention dr hearing and it is hard to get into interpersonal issues overall consistently with the residential design guidelines and planning commission unanimously approved what you see before you we respectfully ask you deny this it is issued properly and consistent with the code and policies i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you. we are questions from president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> um, mr. wong was adamant in his presentation what i heard in his presentation and i think another commissioner for asking has wrong here its drawings were wrong that the house was for the as high as or was the wrong height they're wrong and that

the - they're wrong it is 28 feet in the 15 feet it is where i lean heavily on the planning department. when making a decision. so, i mean i looked at the plans as they were present to to us just now i don't see that. but, you know. that is my non-professional non-architectural sites and lean on you a little bit mr. teague because mr. wong was adamant give us feedback obtain those two items he was adamant about. >> i don't catch everything. >> the two things the roof height. >> right. >> not represented and as much

i think the number was 8 feet different than represented as as opposed to they came together pretty - as according to the photo that was represented to us and the side setback was much longer than the 15 feet was represented. >> i know on the side setback we'll tackle that one of the original plans showed it to shallow not called in that time but the plan see have before you say intending increased the department of neighbor does the light well to my review. and in terms of what i can base it on aerial views with the height not easy to say how that is measured i height can be challenging and

sometimes, it floor levels that in between curve and grade can get feet can be distorted and i know that the neighbors the appellants property there is a slight down slope from the street level. um, and so if you're looking at the height of the building from the street relative to the building in the back i don't know the exact difference perhaps i don't know if it is exact i think i need more information specifically in the appellant on where the measurement is on the plans that are incorrect to pinpoint it without of level of precision from our thinks that the plans are adequate relative to those issues. >> the one thing i look at in these cases especially it was

all the variance cases again, these persons here had a big time variance case yet new the key in variance cases there are - um, the variance has to be proven - how many items do you have. >> 5 required of these. >> 5 riverside finding one of the big ones always rings in my mind this out of sync with the neighborhood and especially between massing and um, extensions of both height wise and length wise this is house out of of the context of the neighborhoods i was looking at this and if anything this is - the appellant house is out of

context with the neighborhood if anything. did you find - in in any way, shape, or form that the allegations which are being um, requested by the project sponsor are they out the context with the neighborhood and destroy the citizen ability or character or anything else on that block has it stand right now. >> any project at the staff level will be a design review to make sure it is with the design guidelines and like a dr hearing in this case a mixed pattern in the area not like - blocks especially in the sunset where buildings have note think remodeled or added built in the 50's they're uniform but a lot

of blocks like this not a lot of uniformity and? more challenging you're trying to balance for the home to expand and respond to the surrounding context in this case, you know. the residential design guidelines calls for a bit of stepping at the rear that is from three-story to the one story context and the adjacent neighbor to the - the counter the up to the time hats to the north, you know. a different context so that example you see their addition has a setback on the north side in response to that context. so all that to say that issue was looked at thoroughly by staff and the

planning commission and consistent with the design guidelines. >> final question. as i always ask in the last hearing. could you project sponsor gone a lot large or pushing the envelope in any way, shape, or form with their ability to expand this house. >> from a debt about as deep as it can go with the pop out and i'll have to double check this is a 40 feet height district the a more 2 and three story context really a three story expression at the street could have potentially gone vertical but from a depth preservation it is maxed out. >> is the setback did they

audacity audacity. >> what they did - in response that was a light well to match the window and then also to do do privacy screening on the deck on top of the pot out they rear. >> would you consider that a good neighborly thing to do. >> those are not part of the project for notice for the three 11 the department determined that was consistent with the design guidelines those changes were added later on to respond to the neighbors concerns.

>> great. thank you very much. >> , sir. >> thank you, mr. teague i want to drill down for the 45 degree rule how was it applied in this case and how do you consider the 45 degree rule with the light into the kitchen window on the appellants property. >> do you mind if i grab the 45 degree rule i don't know if it was a specific reference to part of design guidelines for a 45 or a more generic we have parts of planning code that used a 45 percent - degree light angle that's a different. >> this is foreshadowing of the window and blocking of light to that window. >> right. >> that diagram showing alleging showing the path of the

blue sky which is not at 45 degrees and so on. >> a couple of options i can pull the guidelines or address that on rebuttal if you like me to and look at that specifically and devote more time. >> we can do a rebuttal. >> i want to make sure i understand the context. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay.. thank you. >> president swig anything further. okay? okay. we'll hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, again. i'm matthew green representing the department of building inspection the permit before you a site plan more than a three horrible it of reviewed by dbi and fire department and puc and the public utilities commission the property complies with the

san francisco building code there has been allegations that some of the dimensions are inaccurate this is true and the normal procedure for where we verify in the field the dimensions are accurate or if wrong there be a revision to rehabilitate the conditions will be routed to planning and building before review i'm sorry for issuance that that will be appealable as well. this is a site permit no construction before the first construction addendum was issued. other than the fact that allegations about inaccurate dimensions which will be verified in the field and dbi recommend this appeal be denied

and the permit upheld. i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> president swig or no commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, mr. green. i would like to ask for detail about a revision permit how does that happen what is the process to get to that point i'm not clear from the record whether the plans are inadequate but assuming they were what is the process to get there? >> so we're presuming the design are designed by. >> professional and adequate it happens in time dispensarys but this presumed an unaccuracy to the inspector writes a correction and files correction will say the provisions reflect

is this new building building permit we use games to be updated for those specific conditions to be routed to the normal planning department and brand new building permit assigned so the project has the new permit and the two building permits. >> what is triggering dbi to do that inspection and see whether the measurements are representative wilson. >> generally vertical additions will start and that's through the plans to verify it is okay. >> that's to start after this appeal. >> like i said there are licensed professionals but sure. >> and if this was to happen just assuming the initial start

inspection that dbi didn't find discrepancies and real life conditions would that mean that is this permit will be suspended until that is dealt with? or how does that work? >> no, it would - depend on egregious this misrepresentation is. or it is possible we work suspended this permit or no work in this area until the revision is issued. >> um, so it depends on. >> okay. will be helpful. >> commissioner trasvina vice president lopez same subject i'm trying to look at the testimony i have mr. wong who lives there

or sister lives there and adamant the measurements on the plans are incorrect. >> correct. >> mr. teague was asked and i was less - hoping for more clarity on the city's view you described the your view or is dbis view of the maps as deference they're drawn they're correct. >> okay. >> you described to commissioner lemberg a process going forward whether an opportunity for actual measurements and a decision at this point to whether their inadequacys and how serious correct. >> in the normal course from

the beginning of this project to now, would the city have routinely seen any measurements taken any measurements connected any measurements or is this not come up routinely in a mater like this. >> the department of building inspection didn't do a site visit to look at the measurement if that's what you're asking. >> that answers any questions? >> prior to the permit. >> thank you. >> vice president lopez. thank you. thank you, mr. green for your testimony. and digging into that same subject of miss statements or infirefighters grant (afg) program funding in the amount of $2,325,133.81 quo heard testimony in the appellant

about a 5 feet difference is giving rise to the permit. >> a big, big dripgs /* /* we heard of 55 to 60 degrees in memory serves 45 degrees those those descriptions in the slopes would that give rise to a revision permit. >> is three 45 degrees at the roofline you're talking about. >> i can't tell you my finding was that we're talking about a

45 purported 45 degree slope in the plans and in actuality from the appellant is that the actual slope will be somewhere in the neighborhoods of 35 in some instances and . >> i would say 10 to 15 degrees it is substantial. >> (multiple voices). >> given rise to - >> okay. at the you can be seated. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> okay. we have someone in the room. >> sorry. >> to president swig last week, i talked to president swig there are so many things wrong with that man, i'm the neighborhood president for 9 years we dealt

with those things all the time we depend on the architect and before i will tell you can you wear me in do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do i have no financial context i know john. the plans from the very moment we saw the plans at the preapplication was not the plans they show the preapplication meeting. >> sorry. >> this is aside. >> mr. wong and mr. hall wrote briefs this is not corrections from grammar and desperately but those are not based on fact and for the proven the same with mr.

halls. >> give me a moment to find the papers. >> this is sign-in sheet. >> overhead please. turn it towards you. thank you. [off mic.] >> paper were filed. papers were filed fraudulently or misrepresented should be - so two people's names nancy wong and jason jason what the tenant that the in the home he didn't sign this and neither did nancy hate to get emotional by buried her not that day we went no way

not for her. at the dr the single question asked of the mr. hall was why did he sign this name because john r0e789d her we were not representing her we were there for our own let's given that we were representing her the second sheet and summary sheet of concerns and one question is dismissive i'll read it if you like i forgot my glasses we have a litany of complaints i'm not anger they board but anger having to do this i have no problem proving someone wrong calling someone a liar and cheat i have a problem with that physically he signed

this under pencil of perjury this is way to get information to the neighborhood. >> 30 seconds. >> we never (bell ringing) received the plans he filed petitions so in problems we can't begin to show you i will show you if we can sit with the gentleman tomorrow i'll show you, you the errors don't have time few. >> any further public comment for this item raise your hand? anyone on zoom no one. >> mr. wong rebuttal three minutes. >> i'm a little bit more organized now sorry here's the house overhead please a view of

my sisters home. >> can you speak into the mic. >> you see the height it slopes on the roof and it is the drawing. as you can see the doted slashed line is had the architect denotes the height of the house is. and actuallyist it is down here as you can see the slope of the roof here the little lip on the edge that represents that the lip there. this is the architects director garcia it makes sense that 20 feet and up and running we all believe that the architect is professional he's going to draw it a accurately portray the

building but not in this case, the light well is highland in yellow it is above it didn't reach down to the windows i've never seen a light well on three floors three more we're in mitigation for those windows none and so respect i have as the view out of her kitchen window to the current deck. which is setback 5 feet already from the property line so whoever built it thought about the neighbors. so, you know. that was my immediate thought is that they'll do that when they expand a photo of a model i created those dimensions are directly taken off the plans line for line of those plans.

(rustling of papers.) so if i look at this drawings with the naked eye that's 10 feet. one look look like they're 10 feet? no two feet large. >> this is a view of the neighborhood on 12 of any sister's house is right here articulated on both sides you notice all the buildings that are expand or added they all (bell ringing) all expect for him on one side. um, do i have. >> the late one is a 28 feet at the dr that is what the plans represented and - (rustling of papers.) and well this celebrated and

this setback is the same level and so they're both 28 feet from the making line. >> thank you that's time. >> or we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> mr. wong where did you pull that the first photo and the first diagram? >> this one and - >> yeah, that's the diagram. >> i can't hear you mark. >> the picture of the house.

>> okay. >> you're trying to show and discrepancy between the photo and real life. >> he's trying to portray the diagram i'm proving that is where it is the photo shows that. >> the key point of this photo is the edge of our sister's house and . >> the roof meets. >> (multiple voices.) >> and where is that on the - this map? >> on the drawing. >> is on this here. >> okay. >> he has a doted line this is roofline at 45 degrees or should be he draws it at 60 degrees the wide end. her roofline it here

the diagram illustrates it is up here. see. >> can you pull that it down a little bit just - >> yes. >> at the. >> yep. this is her roofline where what did you call that the top line of the second floor. >> so the issue is the degree? >> the slant; correct? >> no one is incorrect illustration because it is not a 60 degree it is 45 degree rule and anything above the 45 degree angle gets no light. >> so anything below that 45 degree angle is based on highlight part this corner that corner is on the light well it is 10 feet wide and 4 feet deep

and after you pass the light well 18 more feet of the house on the property line that stories up so to past that 1023509 mark is 2 minutes or three minutes whatever she gets sun she wakes up to the sun and goes over. >> you're going beyond what i was trying to find out about the photo that's all i needed. >> i'm - i was only going to ask about the first 5. >> thank you you can be seat and we'll hear from the permit holder i want the architect to speak he's raising his hand. >> i'm sorry. >> he has two minutes. >> please go ahead i have three

minutes. >> we can't hear you. >> we're not seeing the right picture. >> i know i'm trying to get this and take your time. >> eric let me get there through. okay. >> well, i'm sorry to go ahead and say um, a few things here. um, three 11 and the ultimate planning commission meeting after about two hundred homes and one hundred of those meetings the design need to be resolved by connections to

revisions by the planning commission and such a couple of dlaurgz might be old and i'm trying to get into my power point and go ahead and try to do this now because what i'm seeing here is that i'm there is photo i want to bring up and that in and of itself is what it is important to me to show. can you see my screen sharing now. >> yes. >> great. thank you. >> you make that bigger like you did last time. >> pause the time the time is paused. >> let me shown to that one picture. >> as you can see changes on the house. wong house a lower

fill in this perpendicular to the camera and the double ones in the um, window of the i assumed we are depend entry into the house in and of itself if you're looking at the top of e brakes to the wall. >> roof only about 2 feet below that that parapet they're parapet i'm not getting spots pettiness one of the aspects of bringing a wall 8 feet over um, will get a lot of the view to the sky that is house it is to the south maybe early morning sun but no direct sun and all directly south of the house how

much shade of their whole patio. you know. i don't know, there be problems and mistakes i have over 28 feet from the house back to the back window and from there it looks like you can drive that up to divisions it is 10 feet so i'm kind of um, trying to make that a point we revised the drawings and look at the dimensions again and again, about four times to 2019, four years to make sure of the dimensions. >> um, that's it. >> you have three two seconds mr. hall do you want to say anything. >> like i want point out

(bell ringing) >> you're fine 30 seconds and with the dr we tried to get into the home they didn't lie us to go into the house to see the conditions the ones on the bottom in the garage area and never opened so we were never able to visit the property but our measurement are correct and agents says they're correct. >> that's time. >> no questions we'll hear from the planning department. >> okay. >> i think i understand. the issues i hope i can explain them in three minutes um, there is no 45 degree requirement in the residential design guidelines for the windows the point that the appellant is trying to make if you don't have at least 45

degrees will not see the sun. um, that window faces due north i don't know how you see sun just to be clear, but the plans don't reference a 45 degree angle no requirement for 45 degree angle the appellant would like there 90 to be a 45 degree angle. relative to the height of the building the appellant showed kind of the side elevation and showed like the sloped roof the the subject home it is means they're not shown the full height they're showing the building higher i don't have pictures buttons appellant pictures i can bring up the native the the roof stopped not

to the end of triangular but they actually terminate earlier so to me again based on my viewing of the plans i don't see a difference been the aerial photos without taking measurements and was on the plans even relative to the height. the appellants diagram or i should say the plans that showed diagram with the angle a section of light well, not the forefront of the building that is basically showing how much openness there is will be on the light due to the light well added to the project relative to the window on the side in question on the appellants side

property line that certainly for me air force hearing that and clarified what we're trying to get at but i want to reiterate no requirement to do that and as a matter of fact, doing a light well a three by 3 you're not going to get 45 excuse me - one story and potential to get 45 degrees for those angles notice is not a requirement for light wells just to be clear, i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> so an allegations allegation the light well didn't go to the ground is stops if effect the windows on the bottom i don't see that did you see that? >> which part and an allegation by the appellant the light well in fact didn't go all the way i

believe i understood all the way to the ground in fact, locked a window that was in existence i don't see that but again, i'm so cross-eyed on the plans. >> i'm happy to use is overhead and try to address that question. again, this diagram is the one in question a lot and this 4 foot setback here is this is a cross-section of that light well, that was proposed on the project, you know. when three 11 to the property line in response to the dr they added this light well to provide some relieve to the side setback and this window. this is showing the access to the light no representation that is supposed to be 45 degrees. but it is at that level don't do light well

at the level the appellant is making the point below it is not habitable space garage space or other space. this is answers your question. >> did the light well go to the ground. >> just the top floor and is that a problem for you. >> no and that was not part of original project again technically what adjacent building on the south has not a light well ambassador substantial setback they're boxed with limited light this is a full on light well, it captured more light the design guidelines do so if i have a light well, you should match that in a certain way to help

incorporate light into both properties for the required to begin with that was a provision by the appellant in response to the concerns raise by the appellant before the dr hearing. >> i'm going to give you the opportunity to be redundant with regards to the roofline and drawings not miss drawn but according to our view those plans are adequate and represent the plan properly. >> in shorter yes. i would note that if was a matching per dsl the wit would be three feet the project sponsor they're proposing 4 feet wise it is large light well than if been a matching light well. >> is that okay? with the appellant in this case.

>> it is. >> with regard to the matching rooflines do the drawing match reality. >> all the information i'm able to see they look legitimate to me. >> thank you that's why we enjoy having i around. thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you no further questions we'll hear from dbi nothing further commissioners this matter is submit and j r why don't you rock and roll this time. >> there's a lot to consider. here and it is a little bit hard to see all the pieces of fit well together we have the departments letting us know from a planning perspective things seem to be okay and if not when

it gets to the building component changes of the building measurements are off in the future. i'm not sure that is comfortable or not i'm not also not sure i see enough to uphold the appeal at this time i'm interested in the thoughts of my fellow commissioners a i don't see i agree a lot of to be considered i - i don't think any of this particularly is relevant to the appeal and for that reason i would vote to deny the appeal. >> it motion.

>> i move to deny the appeal and any further comments. >> vice president lopez president swig i thank my colleagues for laying out their positions. i am reluctant to deny this appeal in major because of the tremendous uncertainly that still exists in the drieksz and from materials have been provided as um, just as an institutional matter i would like to know at some point from the planning department how a neighbor like mr. wong and his colleague can get those questions answered within the department with the permit

holder there so that either appeals can be avoided or come in with a common set of facts it is frustrating people come in with different views if the department were able to and maybe not because 6 resources or rules we put in place um, not able to sufficiently resolve petitioners because as this matter i'm heartened by the insurance and the testimony of depended there are in fact drip sisters between map relations to the permit this is the best avenue in there are dip drip

sisters. >> i'll deny the appeal. >> i think i share the view that has been expressed by profess speakers in memoriams of a lot to take in it is in my mind the nature of the where this appeal and the appeal process and the hearing process fits within that subsequence we have to to decide before the heights and slopes get to the building that's bad news the

good news is process to catch those drips sisters and it is highly envisioned this process there are discrepancies sound significant were blowing past the 6 inch guidance that mr. green spoke about good news that kicks off for someone whose testimony is clear that has been a project for several years that kicks off another round of review and by the way, oath appeal opportunity. and so i think that, you know. everything we need to take in is because of

the way the process is structured and the sequencing make the decision a little bit more challenging than otherwise would be because ideally we ask one of mr. greens colleagues what the height and slope that's where we're at and so with that, i trust the process that is before us and the fact that if there are inconsistencies dbi will catch those and mr. wong or ms. wong anyone followed the process including with the dr process we go on through i'm sure will had not to file other appeal if there are issues flagged in any revision permit that maybe required so with that, i'm inclined to vote in

support of motion. >> okay. >> commissioner lemberg on the base because of our motion. >> motion from commissioner lemberg to deny the permit on that motion. >> vice president lopez, aye. >> and commissioner trasvina, aye. >> commissioner eppler, aye. >> president swig an appeal is denied and can we come back at 25 afte. okay. welcome back >> welcome to the san francisco city and county board of appeals meeting this evening at 5:00 pm., wednesday, november 1, 2023. we are now on item 6

2023. we are now on item 6 appeal no. appeal no. appeal no. appeal no. houses; horizontal and vertical addition and interior renovation with bath and kitchen alteration) permit no. 2018/07/03/3738. >> and we'll hear from ms. roddy first, you have 7 minutes. >> hi. >> i've been assured that. okay -. thank you. >> there we go. >> i've been assured you all have the um, attachment that i sent with my brief and so if you have the pdf that is um, even i'd like to pdfs and if you guys

all are access to that i won't do that but use is overhead for something. >> you, you want alice we didn't get the information in advance but we have read the briefs and have the exhibits. >> i put it will be helpful. >> you can put it on the overhead that is better. >> can i have a overhead please. i'm sorry. >> you want to show it now. >> not yet. >> good evening, my name is eileen roddy live next door to the proposed construction a native san franciscan born and raised in the sunset have a few decided not to have a lot of support we have done that twice half of the people that are

interested sent e-mails of support as and indicated they would i received a lot of messages that demonstrates what a contention thank you very much in february of 2020 we attempted review the planning commission agreed that the project should be limiting factors and they issued dr a zero 685 i commitment in my brief and displaying that on the overhead and overhead please.

this is the conditions. the first stipulate the property of the building reaching three floor parapets and making the bay projections windows and doors line and comply with the code and surrounding buildings. originally the proposed construction was going to lapse my balcony sticking out on the wall blocking the open end of my balcony that is blocking light that from my home office he spend 10 to 12 hours during tax season at 9 condition on the dra provide setbacks adjacent to the neighbors balcony and reaching

items in the facade no where does the sponsor add a 6 and a half pop out with a title or a 2 1/2 roof overhang in the resources in the pdf i have given you pdf 8 and 9. po 8 highlights in yellow the urban authored pop out and the squiggly line the roof overhang and po 9 - highlights just a roof overhang from the three floor perspective. those items were not on the plan dated 7/15/19 little day of hearing

but on the plans 9/13922 i requested from the project sponsor we had to hire a professional we helped us review the files and prepared the pages you're reviewing with the deviation highlighted. we request that the board not allow those changes they are new features and not part of approved plan. item number 6 on the commissioners action board addresses rear pop outs indicating should not steady 5 feet to preerg scale to the mid block open space. once again if

you look at po 8, po 11 and 12 from the pdf i provide with my brief the yellow highlights land extensions indicate that 5 foot extensions at the rear of the second story have been added not present on the plans dated 7/15/will you appear on the plans at dbi dated 9/13, 22 no extensions at the rear on the approved plans nor does the commission indicate point sponsor can add 5 foot extensions where none were and we ask you not allow those they're not authorized and

compliant with the plans approved by the commission. after our dr hearing the commissioners commend us on the amount of support and even laid spot evening the hearing room was packed. commissioner cop he will and told us i wanted to take a direction review but preferred we come back once the plans had been modified to include the conditions detailed by the commission and the other commissioner realizing we've been through the hearing twice didn't want us to come a third time here we are but commissioner cop he will hesitate prevailed we do not be here we ask you not allow those hold the sponsor to the

conditions and so forth in the dra and the accompanying plans. thank you very much for the opportunity to present our appeal. >> okay. thank you. >> don't 9-1-1 questions at this time to we'll hear from the primary holder i know the architect is here mr. chang you're open mute. >> can you hear me? >> yes welcome you have 7 minutes president swig and vice president lopez and commissioners, thank you for listening to our presentation and it will be hopefully rather short. be our position ask that we need the go through the three 11 and received the comments

from david winning low and eventually jeff so to the best of our ability we complied with them any errors we'll remedy them but to the best of my acknowledging in the petted on the requests for the documents were present by ms. roddy and on top of that during the three 11 the hearing at the very end it was decided that um, the these 9 items did not properly reflect some of the final finding and i believe one of the members of the board suggested that david who had a very good relationship

with ourselves and ms. wright would sort of have the discussions above us and address those items and, you know. that is the path that, you know. in my mind was going to resolve this. now if ms. roddy feels we exceeded that i gladly make correction but i don't believe we've done so. and as well i think she noted something in the lines of us redesigning between the time we had the three 11 and the time we submitted um, actual the time we went into the three 11 and came out of three 11 you my understanding from talking to the architects in san francisco

who have more experience than i do tell you i'm from the bay area and done projects but i don't work in the city of san francisco everyday i reached out friends that more experience than i that is correct as long as you do not exceed the allowed planning requirements when someone challenges your design and i must make revisions to our design you also have the right to amend you're design at that time and resubmit that we need the it and hoping that was what was reviewed we david and jeff

horn excuse me. i had i guess my presentation what the document that was submitted you to i don't have any additional documents i didn't think i needed any i'm not asking for additional concessions of any kind of design changes own our part. we are in the city and dbi and we were actually waiting for building comments with ms. roddy was saying she wanted to see some drawings i was out of the country and for the able to do that she did tell me by, you know. would appeal which, you know. that's all right. but i guess one of the questions i have is we've been approved for

i think over a year. and i'm just curious and i don't know it is relevant to this case or meeting but why it took 15 months to, you know. bring this up that was all public knowledge i'm curious. >> in any case that is thank you for the time and that's all i have. >> we have a question okay. thank you a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your testimony. i understand correctly it is your testimony tonight, you were required to implement and take that 9 items and done your best to do so? >> to meaning we come piloted with everything according to jeff's and david's plans. >> and other items like the

extension the pop out things you added outside of the 9 items? >> yes. and it is what i spoke to earlier that when someone possums our design and it is true of someone didn't as long as our design pete's with current city planning or building state building code, nothing says you can't alter our design. >> (multiple voices). >> or allowable square footage and as a matter of fact we spoke to i don't remember david arrest jeff but well aware we're doing this and said well within our right to do this if you choose to the whole set will be reviewed with all the changes and required to do the three 11

and/or the ones you would like to, you know. the changes you like to make because of requirements or for another reason and i note in the record e-mails from ms. chan saying a long period of time was trying to get an answer in the city during those various times with the new items have you had the opportunity to peak to ms. roddy or any of the neighbors and i did not directly they have been - we were having the discussions with david and um, and the was actually coordinating communications between both parties in my mind whatever changes we submitted to david would also flow to ms.

roddy. >> thank you. >> that's all i have. >> uh-huh. okay. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. >> um, my question is similar to commissioner trasvina but was did you provide the proposed changes we were - when you decided to make those changes to the planning outside of scope of the hearings. >> my finding that was not a requirement. >> thank you that is what i want dbi and represents to focus on. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department and

good evening, again.? is building permit for property that is an existing single-family home a double wide lot 25 foot and 50 foot wide the proposal to in totality subdivide this expanded to some degree on the northern lot and on single-family homes so the only property building in question is the northern that is adjacent to the appellant. um, this is a a little bit unusual only in the sense that as mentioned the process was a very engaged process two dr hearings and ultimately at the second dr

hearing a recommendation for various modifications to the project in response to the dr and ultimately the planning commission found those to be adequate changes to make. part of challenge 9 changes and they were is all not precise so the planning commission discussed it one of the options was. okay. given this guidance and continue it now have the plans amended and come back to the planning commission to review the final plans and ultimately the planning commission said no, we don't want to do that urban forester been out here twice we said what we want the detail we'll leave to the staff a good working relationship between the staff and all the parties we trust staff to understand what

we're saying in the 9 changes and any smaller details figure that in the 14 details and that's what happened the project sponsor went through a round with the project planner and one of the agencies that oversees the dr review process and did what we ultimately did the planning department staff and the applicant determined auto 9 requirements of the planning commission action on the is dr. and the appellant today a basically their case is that they feel like the changes were made don't accurately good further law officers called out in the planning commission guidance this is what we're looking. specifically on the front they asked to have like a inset along the appellants

balcony didn't say how wide or deep that inset maybe that inset was provided the planning commission action didn't talk about maintaining any cornice line this was left there. i'm on the corner. the massing the building inset but is cornice was left? one of the issues the appellant has concerns about. um, and on the rear pop out the original plans actually were a little bit interesting in the sense of three-story projected deeper than the 2 floor and designed in poet out manner 12 foot pop up out permitted in the rear yard. the poetic guidance

from the planning commission can't be more than 5 feet didn't address the floor didn't go further than that the proposal to pull in the three-story pull in the pop out no further than 5 feet and at second floor push it out didn't ignore further 5 feet that is consistent with what the planning commission has the limit the planning commission put own the project. and objective the appellant feels that is not an appropriate guidance. and i think you heard the um, you know. the permit holder we didn't have a discussion finding can and

cannot happen what changes and the whole thing that the planning commission adopted, you know. a dr action that was not completely exact and basically put on staff to figure out the details and meeting the 9 criteria that were. >> this was a very understood process there was communication with the appellant during that time about the changes were happening to the plans, um, before it was um, ultimately issued and there is a disagreement between the appellant and the permit holder and the city about the final changes. um, because there was a very specific process um, to make those changes and was reviewed thoroughly by the

project master plan and our architect the department feels the conditions were met by the planning commission at the discriminatory review and the permit was issued correctly and we respectfully request you deny the appeal and uphold the permit i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you. we have questions from president swig and vice president lopez and commissioner lemberg. >> so when this body deliverables and asked for a change if it denies the changing it by 6 inches or doing away with this and that that is how the plans end up with those specific things. and charge

you're saying in this three that was the appellant is a victim of ambiguity and there was a spirit that was offered with regards to what might be changed on the plan and that project sponsor manifested in the plans we see today. and with sups and guidance and feedback if the planning department is that true? >> yeah. i mean that is very accurate in terms of process offer is dr hearing the appellant filed a revision that they of the met the planning commission standards several iterations and i need to make those changes this and that i'm

not sure how many iterations but several iterations it was determined the plans were consistent with the planning commission actions. >> so at issue all of that occurred and that is all fine and dandy with you i've heard that the issue here there was part triangle was the appellant that who saw some plans they didn't see in 2019 we were not made privy to the fact were discussions iterations there was a spit that was thrown out as part of the dr. the project architect did their best to raise this spirit planning with

the guidelines did their best to grass embrace /* embrace the issue someone was not trying to hide the but rather the appellant was not involved in any of the discussions that led to final plan as far as they're concerned some plans that don't past mustard never saw them before. is that the spirit of what. >> i don't want to speak to the appellants as far as a question of they are take issue or disagree with the plans with

consistent with the planning commission the planning commission decide at the hearing was clear in the actual motion they made was to take dr and modify basically and adopt the modifications 9 of those and for staff to continue working with the architect to finalize the details and very specific discussions like warn aware nns /* /*ness and i think the appellants periodic changes in the 9 bullet points and no specific changes don't know what those looks like. >> for the purpose of this hearing you are happy you as

representing happy with the results of those plans they fell directly into the context of dr direction and what we need to hear from rebuttal from the appellant hope the appellant is listening to me is those changes things that they can understand or they can such a surprise have huge problems with their they're seeing. >> the entire context of review of the revised plans after the dr hearing to make sure they're consistent with the planning commission actions that is entire context and that makes this a little bit different than typical. >> (multiple voices.) >> and the fuzzness. >> it was not done at a public hearing the planning department got the plans to a place the

departments says they're consistent that's why they're issued and clearly those plans don't look exactly the same as the dr they had to be changed and the appellant have detailed the issues. >> as far as you're concerned work the dr and what you would like to hear - so you're okay with that moving forward to deny the appeal but to hear because the appellant is saying wow. those are new plans for us if there is anything they are very large disagreements other than the fact they're correct. >> we think the plans are consistent with the planning commission actions so that's fine there and so the appellants are detailed having the

appellant mention like if there's tweaks that need to be made i'm sure reasonable stuff this is an unusual process for this project but having said that, i mean the plans in front of you the department feels they're consistent with the applications action. >> thanks i'll pass that along to vice president lopez. >> thank you. >> a couple of things for me. the self described fuzzness from our perspective is that due do we are talking about new buildings or what - >> (multiple voices). >> what's that. >> i think that is because there were so many proposed changes to this project and a lot of minor and sometimes down

to the inch redesign a project. and sometimes, the guidance they give is a principle without those hard edges; right? and if they tell i to move something you might have to shift to. >> data that and didn't want to have that and specific they were counting on staff to do the work to iron out the final details what the dr action they passed. >> got it. >> follow-up you said they're trusting staff to do that work.

as part of the doing that work is that your understanding that work should involve, you know. communicating, you know. proposed changes to the folks like the appellants or is that most exchange between the primary holder and architect and staff. >> ? typically between like the people that file the dr and the planning commission took response to the dr the changes between the department and the appellant. and again, i don't have the exact detail the level of communication and coordination with the appellant during that process once that is finalized there was a level of communication but in terms of exactly when and the timeline and the review timeline i'm not

sure but definitely was not a condition in the dr to have that happen unprior to the issuance of that permit not the process that will happen. >> thank you. >> sure. >> commissioner lemberg. >> thank you, mr. teague i have a picture of questions behind this. i can't say i understand why the planning commission choose to not bring this back for a third hearing seeing use contention this project was and then seeing that there were pretty significant additions to this project more interested in the scope not asking you to answer that not a question i don't know or thinks this. >> caught on the policy reasons like a bigger picture why

projects sponsors are permitted to make this outside of scope why aren't they allowed to make changes outside of that scope in my head a dispensary review they had a list of things to change which were several. what happens with the 9 changes and some other stuff i don't understand why it is permissible. >> sure to answer the first question to give you more it context mooivenz from watching the video to hearing and i think as the appellant mentioned people came out on both hearings

the second hearing i don't know exactly what time of fit that was pretty late i think the planning commission position they of the they got to a resolution and they really didn't want to bring everybody back out for a third hearing that's y where they said we'll pass those actions and let's let staff workout the details so that's what they said that's the only information on that. a i'm on the second question it always depends on an dispensary review sometimes the planning commission make proposals for a third story has to set that back 15 feet and in this situation 90-day grace period this is why

the planning commission was talking about talking about moving features around and doing some other things without giving precise dimensions and we will be adding for piecing provisions i don't know we would having a planning commission this is at the beginning 2018-2019 so an understanding needs to be moved around. to my understanding nothing for the plans are before you today is full on mile-an-hour additional other than the second floor at the rear and nuance had a pop out big on top and small on bottom and make that voices vice versa

the challenge of that case and whether or not that is an appropriate change to be made in response to the planning commission actions i mean not clearly the appellate shouldn't have made that but just i think they also pulled the three-story back further and only make that point i don't feel like the only the front left and cornice but gave the massing is pulled back to match the neighbors balcony so it is hard to say they didn't do what you planning commission said but they did left the cornice kind of get into the weeds whether or not an element to be resolved or not consistent with the planning commission the

tint up front with a massing not having blocking off their balcony they're reaching the mass was having the core in his overhang is not was not the issue but the full on floor level extend that far forward i think that the rational. >> commissioner i'm sorry. >> trying to formulate this question. i'm accusing the project sponsor of anything not necessarily thinking this is from you but for sake of an example give been tow dr processes already , you know. not accusing that but for sake

of example wouldn't the planning commission decision be like a beacon make additional changes because of the people that are opposing this project will not have a chance to, you know. protest. it make they even comfortable this is objective not your fault no one in the room but makes necessary uncomfortable how we got here i don't know what to do and i'm not sure there was a question the first hour but. >> i'm not sure i can - really answer that. >> it's. >> the planning commission took the actions they took which required the process that happened after. it was not a decision by the planning

commission that was like completely objective left gray areas and tweaking to be done and is project before you is end of that. >> can you describe the communications of the input by the appellant action planning commission. up until now. >> i give more information on the rebuttal if that's okay. i confirmed with the project planner that there was a conversation with the appellant, you know. prior to the permits issued but not sure off the top of my head is the exact timing level of the coordination that that level of information will you happy to look at more and provide more from rebuttal. >> i predator if you would i think that is important that the

appellants described as victims of this process but seeing the permit holder is a victim because gone on for months and they seems like they worked with the department the departments comfortable that whatever additions within the spirit or not inconsistent with whatever language that fits and now before us we are asked to make a decision similar to the decision we were asked to make earlier about the degree of the picture of the roof in the previous case and it seems to me we really - this could be - i asked him earlier in the case was there an opportunity for the neighbors to get some questions resolved by the city seems like in this case- a lot could be been

resolved to appellant been able to meet and be part of this so they could get of wisdom of the planning department it says all in the planning department spirit and know what opportunities there are for members of the public so they don't have to become appellants. >> okay. thank you, i don't see any further questions now hear in the department of building inspection. >> good evening matthew green representing the department of building inspection this is about the planning department approval by the plans giving to dbi they meet the building code at the end of the day, two single-family homes and two

separate certificates will support any changes you feel amenable i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> moving on to public comment anyone in the room to provide public comment if you want to line up against the wall and after speaking fill out a speaker card and hand to alex go ahead i have limited to 3 minutes per speaker a my name is ellen a neighbor of eileen roddy my husband and i purchased a house in 2020 after the distributorships review i'm appalled from dbi my experience

dbi has nothing to do with new buildings but the renovation of a 12 unit building in pacific heights of an hoa and can tell you no addition was a nuance. and nothing was ever (unintelligible) i came tonight with three questions. and the also came tonight after looking at the plans submittal guidelines for the planning department any questions? are this as neighbors to the project in question we have are three questions to which we ask answers. why is dbi has plans dir from those in good faith and dispensary review and when were the dispensary review plans changed by whom. and how can we can assured what is agreed upon

day will be xutd xutd in full faith. >> thank you next speaker. >> >> i'm e licensee. >> it is my family home. for my mother lives i have a lot of good memories and friends that used to live own that block and watched this process over 4 years and i will say i'm impressed by the neighborhood group that has formed i'm concerned why we're here for a third time um, but in 2019 my parents and many of the

neighbors postponed a point person to avoid duplex of effort got petitions of effort signed and reached out to community groups like spur and speak and all the neighbors contributed money to pay for the expenses filing fees and expenses and most of all the planning department worked with the sponsors to reach a compromise in many, many e-mails back and forth the number of reviews will make people's heads spin our neighbors of the the sponsor was not operating if good faith because remedies will be only disregarded and several incidents we reached a compromise to have those plans replaced by others. and it is a

little bit skechers to think what is point of dr hearing we are here for with many of our neighbors and people it is interesting to hear a little bit pop out there was something about 6 inches being a big deal and this fuzzness this hearing those hearings are here to iron fuzzness we have loved and hoped to continue to love and live will be on the chopping block because of some, you know. ambiguous terminology we were not aware and for 5 feet and 5 inchesly hope you'll not let the

plans move forward will disregard the whole process. thank you. >> please fill out a speaker card and anyone on zoom please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so i see one hand okay. mr. chang you'll have your chance after rebuttal and ms. roddy first three minutes to address the board. >> many of you asked but communication and offer is years i had great communication with the planning department i know that david winning will and i e-mailed daily was mentioned the plan changed too often like my

daughter said i would take those plans to the architect this is new plan and say to david this is it i think we're there and then the next day the plan would change or the project sponsor will send oat plans has nothing to do with what we do and trying to come to a compromise i feel like we had great communication up to the dr hearing and after that was over communication pretty much shut done i have pages and page hey i'm looking for an update anything established or anything new happened and most months would go by i feel like a total pest

occasionally i got a response those are the plans were um, that is project sponsor provided to meet the requirements that the planning commission set forward those plans are dated august of 2020 so 6 months after the dr hearing notices foot extensions i have the plans with me dozens of plans. that was kind of the last um, bit i heard about changes in plans where are the ones submit to me because i asked for them i continued to ask for plans when i got the noticing that the site plan had been issued i reached out to planning it took two weeks for us to get together and chat. and

that was one day before had to um, file the appeal and so i filed the appeal because i needed more time i never got to see the plans as dbi for whatever reason we're not allowed to say plans. >> 30 seconds. >> it leaves us up to this plans given plans given plans what went to dbi oh, you can't see them their copyrighted or something we saw the deviations that's where we are. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner lemberg and commissioner trasvina and i'm impressed with the neighborhood i put together and ultimately to this project impacts you as a only immediate neighbor not - by this project

sponsor any question for you is based on the current set of plans the ones that i believe you've talking about had changes from that set of plans would safety you. >> i take in particular with the two, 5 foot extensions off the back of the building as the gentleman from planning noted on the plans were in effect the day of our hearing there was a four foot pop out on the three-story and a three foot balcony nothing on the second floor. at least on the building next to me i think there was an extension on the ground floor deeper than 5 feet

had when they said pull back 5 feet they were addressing the extensions on the plan and the front of the building i can show you i know that pictures are see the overhead. these are our houses. my house is the shingled house her house is the blue house this is the double wide house that is being renovated. the house setback as at the go down the street as you can see the original proposal the construction come out and lapse the end of my balcony which let's see - um, so my request i'm sorry here it is. so that's

my balcony looking south and we tried to put a piece of plywood so you can see and my home office inside that building having the building setback was important to me. so was stepped outer but popped out in a difference location defeats the purpose does that answer your question. >> you showed us the impact what is the impact a loss of view, or loss of light what is the impact to you? >> on both the front the loss of light and loss of privacy

especially on the back of the house our kitchen and living room are in the back of the house. and his i got it out 5 feet on the second floor will put a wall right where our light comes in from the west and so its lack of light and lack of privacy. >> is that the what you recall with the window or just a wall. >> they're not allowed to put windows on this property line so just a wall. >> what's the privacy impact if it is a wall. >> there is a then a 5 foot or 7 foot balcony or something so people will be out - walking around on that. >> my windows are actually having sliding doors my deck is

right through so his addition and his balcony will impact that. >> and mentioned in your brief one of the reasons you filed the appeal you're running out of time you wanted to get some answers. and you just said that again tonight would - do you see any potentiality if we continued is this mandatory matter to give you the opportunity to meet with planning to get an understanding of their position and express your position and meet with the permit holder is this helpful or something we need to decide tonight and we have negotiated very well over the years so that

is the element of surprise i didn't - there was no mention of second floor additions we talked or the day of dr hearing. so all of a sudden now 72 hour additions off the back of the house never a consideration i thought we went to the dr hearing i thought that was final final they said those 9 things need to be corrected and nothing about go ahead and add anything else in the meantime i thought that was a done deal i'm open to discuss with the project sponsor. >> you previously said your interactions were helpful. >> i have a great relationship with the people in planning.

>> further communication with the planning department would that helpful. >> yes. >> at the. >> okay. thank you. >> vice president lopez. >> thank you. >> i also want to echo commissioner lembergs admiration and praise organization thank you for my fellow commissioners on this question and one remaining question i have (clearing throat) with respect to the rear second floor pop out and perhaps continued or if we need to decide the questions this evening been fodder for those discussions but would

alternatives to eliminating the pop out to. >> i can't let privacy barriers or landscaping or would those something you'll consider or more, you know. bio modal yes or no on the pop out question in your mind. >> i don't know what privacy shields are in my mind the building comes out another 5 feet and the desk after that the 5 foot extension is solid; right? it is piece of the

building so i don't know how that could be how a privacy shield will work on the deck they could - or i could put stuff on my deck to block them out. because notices foot extensions off the back of the building um, we had the dr hearing i do not find that acceptable we walked out of hearing thinking that was good they saw exceptional things and listed 9 things to be chained they were fairly definite that is a line removed and so i didn't consider that adding

extensions would be even a possibility. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you, you can be seated we'll hear from the mr. chang you have three minutes. >> thank you. >> i first of all, i must commend ms. roddy she did basically create and very substantial organization to for lack of a better term tried to stop my project i came out of no where she thinks i'm somebody from, you know. out of town trying to ruin her person space.

and that is that couldn't be further from the truth. the reason we have this project is because one of my sons have been working in downtown for over 5 years prior to the pandemic. and his brother was coming back from hong kong and talking about getting a job in san francisco and since gotten married has a child this was to put two families in those proposed buildings. so i am saddened they look at me has a developer. i can't go anything about that.

second of all i truly believe doing everything we can and some to work with ms. roddy and, you know. give her peace her husband jim was a true angel and even ms. roddy helped us, you know. when we were out of town with with keeping our eye on that on our front yard i totally respect her but hope she understands there is nothing malicious in what we're trying to do for example, the 5 feet that was added because basically trying to really trying to maximize space for the kids, aye. >> 30 seconds. >> logically if i have to pull

5 feet if i can push it downstairs and make that uniform. and don't believe that is unreasonable especially, if it is not outside of bounds of what is allowed. and in terms of privacy (bell ringing) >> that's time. >> mr. chang your time is up we have a couple of questions from president swig and commissioner lemberg. >> you have 5 seconds. >> finish your sentence. >> i respect ms. roddy privacy but had her 10 foot deck looking over our property. >> - >> thank you, thank you your time it up and president swig. >> i'm trying to figure out how a 5 foot pop up a dr and the

corey maybe you can address this but i'm still trying to figure out how a 5 foot pop out pops out that is my concern. so - mr. chang it seems you. >> ms. roddy have a great relationship this is really good most people like have been have venom in their eyes i stand up and say you guys have to live next door to each other to chilly commend you and all that. but mr. chang we understand do

some things i believe we could say really cranky uphold the appeal and issue that based on the plans reverted back to the 2019 hearing and 86 that will get rid of of the pop out really fast we can do that i think. i don't want to do that but because there's a level of fairness worked with planning and again, there is suddenly a 5 foot pop out there is any room - again, we, continue that as commissioner trasvina suggests and then ms. roddy said i like

to have time to negotiate with mr. chante real good person to negotiate with so our choices are one to deny the appeal, two, continue it to um, to have more conversations or three, revert back to the 2019 plans that were present at the end of dr. i want to ask the key question do have room to further negotiate with ms. roddy if we had a continuation own this? that's the only way do you have any room or want a final decision tonight where we might decide that 5 foot pot out or this is las vegas or we deny the appeal

and you get our plans as you have negotiated with planning what are you're feeling about that given the three options you can be a commissioner like me (laughter). >> not much of a chance like that but i prefer the offer. you obviously as a neighbor i'm not here to make ms. roddy life difficult and i'm hoping it goes both ways i think she as definitely a concern with the front balcony and if we didn't do enough to clear even males or females base and massing away and the core in his is an issue i'm happy to bring the core in his back to the side of the highway so more air and light

and view so it sets her needs and still looks good from the street. the 5 feet i do beg the board that this is not something we need the on a whim that was actually discussed among the family that was something, you know. my kids asked for. and so i'd like to respect their wishes and if all potential i'm sure everyone is tired of this case but make the modifications in the front if it is acceptable. >> so and why not to get into this argument i'm not a trained architect and i'm screwed up up corey's life but any

consolidation with the 5 foot pop out can it be reduced or adjusted? you know. or issue is privacy was suggested that the deck has some moeflgz i see lattice in the future i mean what is your thoughts. >> is the question. >> for you. >> i'm concerned i will be happy and, provide some privacy ever to the lattice or other form our intent not to impose on their privacy we appreciate ours. so that's certainly something we can talk about i mean that is - i'm happy to say if i approve it up to the

lattice with whatever height you wish not a problem. >> i'm hearing we had some negotiations opportunity in the front and negotiating opportunities in the back so you wouldn't respond if we need the a short continuous to workout the details and presented to you a manifest injustice if we had a short continuous to continue our constructive conversations. >> is there a way to allow it this to provide if we are down to minor aspect of the project we've been at that for 6 years for house renovations. >> i know >> and i don't know to tell you how many dollars in mortgage and so on so everyday is kind of important. and i'm

happy to meet with ms. roddy and, you know. and anyone from the city planning office but if no other chances in discussions i see our plans good evening to the city will take two months i hope it gets resolved in a manner of days not a week or two. >> i feel your pain i hear that pain just about ever hearing and getting things done in the city a long and painful i'm sorry for that but move towards a resolution and not a arbitrary decision like a pop out out it is worst furthering negotiations that is my point of view but

discuss that and maybe give us some direction as he is about to step to the mic. thank you very much for answering any questions? >> we'll hear from the planning department. >> i'm hoping to share graphics a little bit of responded to the earlier stuff with the total timeline the dr action happened to february 2020 the following month had covid and the the appellant was involved on iterations of plans and had comments on the final plans before you the same comments here on appeal the grievances

war raised and discussed and understood when the planning department took the final action there was not a ghosting situation. i think seeing the two plans back to back hopefully this will be helpful in showing up. >> a glare there. >> that bright light is making it - >> i'm hoping a way to oh. thank you. >> this was the original proposal and you'll see um, what is important here you'll see - got to get the lines 6 here it is the back of the building essentially to 5 foot pop out from 6 the original ground floor but the reason with a inset to

have a deck as you can see the three-story is over hanging the planning commission said the pop out shall be no deeper than 5 feet in response this was all reduced in the rear um, it is line 6 again to the building line didn't pop out 5 feet but three-story further babe and replaced this instead of having this situation again, this is a landing not a full-on deck not the width of the building for the at minimum required size of a lapd a little bit bigger but is not a space with a bunch of people and this landing to the rear yard that gives us the context of what the rational was

and again, this pop out to be element to the 5 foot um, they took it further and changed the context of rear of the building to be less deep and shift that mass to the second floor instead of three-story within that was a planning commission requirement to keep the pop out no more than 5 feet and shift and reduce (bell ringing) reduced in depth. >> thank you sorry we have a question from president swig and commissioner lemberg and this is tricky several things that you really are clever you can change that order i was number two, that was tricky now i have to perform can you put your thing we need the the drawings up

there overhead please. okay. so i understand the 5 feet is not necessarily 5 feet of pop out was re - to the neighborhood and my feeling on that. so but that is still if i'm trying to do here it is dangerous not to go - i'd rather make a decision tonight thank step up to the plate this i'm sensitive to the project sponsor but if it takes another hearing let's get it right i'm trying to walk that tightrope. the issue expressed by the appellant is privacy in the back i understand that the 5 foot pop out ruling not a 5 foot pop out is change of massing and the

landing it is not a deck but a landing. and so i get our point. what can we do in the back to um, mitigate the privacy issue as expressed by the appellant? >> i mean this is that's a tough questions maybe multiple-generational. >> do we do it tonight er hear this last night- >> (multiple voices). >> depends on the appellant privacy people on the balcony or is landing or just windows from the rear portion of the building i'm not sure i understand. >> (multiple voices). >> what i heard from here is that she's worried about the deck expense will be people out there and they will be reviewing

the activities around her house puts an imposition. >> this area here the landing? >> the second floor. >> we're- yeah. >> (multiple voices.) >> is that the landing or the balcony? >> you're concerned with you. >> i'm sorry can you come up to the microphone. >> you're asking her a question we can't understand. >> can you come to the microphone we don't formally do that but trying to work on something here that so where's your privacy and the plans we looked at at dbi 5 or 7 foot extension and decks are you not showing that. >> i don't have access to the plans. >> that's why we're trying to do this to satisfactory

everybody. >> bear with many he and a deck you are a barbecue and have a lounge so there is. >> issued there is this 5 foot lapd that extend out to the stairs. >> yeah. >> i want to be able to do is show that in the rear elevation so a better understanding of what that is. >> and there's the landing. to for the stairs this is a large door here we rear. >> (multiple voices.) >> i don't know exactly given the nature the opening and that landing can be made a little bit

smaller but this is not, you know. not a 5 feet deep and i don't know had the exact width it but it is not to the level of like a large deck people will put a bunch of chairs and stand around definitely not the same deck agency before i don't know if reducing this to the minimum but there the knowledge code to give the ability to obviously exit and again down the stairs but not big enough for people to hang out, you know. own that landing an adequate response. >> given the side view and side access to the neighbor and under any circumstances to create a privacy any privacy screen

whatsoever i understand your deck is the issue not the landing and 6 foot. >> (multiple voices.) >> and put a 4 foot table and two chairs wouldn't fit. >> (multiple voices). >> really setback 5 feet. >> right. >> from the property line if you provide any kind of privacy will an substantial wall along the property line. >> will be a wall? >> of. >> of some sort about visible private school will take something solid mostly solid of a substantial height there. >> so lattice a lattice screen with floor not realistic. >> spectrum of effectiveness. >> let's jump to the front show

us while we're having our conversation. >> what about the front and the project sponsor to make some adjustment there is that something we could verbalize and handle tonight if we said a result? this is responding to the project sponsors um, plea that we've been doing this long enough can we please get a permit what can he, do tonight having heard him saying i can give up some of the overhead. >> a distinction originally as you can see this is the appellants balcony originally the proposal for this this with the full pass mass of this building to project closer to

the street with that balcony. now this same level of projects still exists on for that cornice not the actual story and building itself if i can show you to the ground floor so on the second floor there is this not here to respond to the balcony and then at the next floor if i can accidently touching the wrong button. >> yeah. this is the provided in response but again, a cornice line out further. it is an

architectal feature not, you know. i think this is wiggle point not taking away the floor, etc.? this a humble issue to address and what could you do with that cornice to alleviate that or reduce the size and role that back. >> the board has - can look at this in to ways; right? your judging you are having the full discretion, you know. the board - be at you are discretionary get rid of cornice or cornice is okay. and obviously the planning department of the the

cornice was fine and the no such of the building was adequate to respond to the building as the planning commission asked for but the boards discretion. >> back to the complaint from as i heard from the appellant was that cornice there in the 2020 plans- >> (multiple voices). >> came out of the the dr. >> no, no cornice the whom building followed the outcome of that cornice. >> the building was setback and the core in his remained. >> yeah. >> so the enact. >> so the discussion i heard mr. chang will be willing to

pull babe it cornice is that what benefit is that to anybody or in our view. >> sure a cornice like this or ease will have design value; right? from the architecture and provides shading into the windows below have functional as well. i mean so has those levels of importance to the design note floor area; right? >> (multiple voices). >> not the same thing as moving walls so this distinction. >> and what negative impact. >> i will have the appellant speak to that in terms of impacts of that cornice on the abundantly. >> the two issues tonight and the rest to the commissioners

with have that discussion to see whether we um, install this or go ahead, you know. >> i think we have another question from commissioner trasvina i don't know if the building department. >> thank you. >> i appreciate all of our creativity and trying to come up with ideas on the fly here you started to say i appreciate you looking back at the record what communications will were with with the appellant is that is it fair to say the 9 revisions that the appellant continued to be involved in the process or have input? >> that's in my understanding yes. >> thank you no further

questions. >> does dbi want to weigh in? >> i want to clarify a point earlier that the plans were available for evolving upon issuance the appellant said couldn't view them but they are and can be viewed they gentleman can't be copied. >> got it that's the point there and you're asking about the minimum that is the landing is 36 inches should be minimum of 36 inches i'm available for any questions that you may have. >>. okay.. thank you. i don't see any questions? so commissioners this matter is submitted and commissioners with your permission i'd like to ask ms. roddy the impact of cornice in the current state versus if

it were removed or reduced can you step to the mic ms. roddy? >> what's the impact cornice in the front to you. >> well the way the dr recommendation were made the commissioners said pretty much we roach everything own the front of the building and setback the building. so didn't understand that um, after the dr hearing after the plans were the plans they said were the plans in effectively didn't understand they can setback the and add anchor in his doesn't make sense. why would you setback the building back and add 2 and a half roof overhang that didn't

doesn't make sense. i - i don't think we addressed did pop out further along the building a 6 foot by 2 and a half pop out shows a title in that was not on the plan either. >> the core in his few you've seen why the cornice was the remainder with list massing is a live and die situation for you or? >> nothing is live and die. >> i understand but a critical issue for you? >> because it is any red tie versus any blue tie except a

real life thing not raising this issue fliply. >> it is not. >> we have some questions. we're going in. >> okay. >> i do notice that the permit holders architect is raising his hand and give ms. roddy an opportunity to add anything. >> we'll find out. >> okay. guys let's rock and roll. >> commissioner trasvina you're next on the list. >> thank you and i'm glad to see in-person the demonstration big heart generosity and your family are known for. >> (laughter) trying to resolve this matter. i think up until mr. teagues last

testimony would be inclined to say the appellant was left out of progress the appellant and both the planning commissioners and according to mr. teague the palate has the opportunity to be involved in the process since that time this the testimony. i think we run a very as much as we want to resolve this tonight and do that with speed i think we run a tremendous risk of getting to wrong and i also think that in the same way this house is more than a house to the ms. roddy more than a house to the ms. chan and second generation having the expansions for the purpose of family i believe given the goodwill

should give them to unto it to resolve this quickly and at the next whatever early hearing we can get back and see what this i have to say maybe other ideas they have we're not thinking of that we only know the maps and testimony give them an opportunity to resolve this on mayor own about it they can't we are required to make a decision but definitely give them the opportunity to a date that is agreeable to both parties. >> commissioner eppler. >> thank you i agree with commissioner trasvina we have run a real risk of making sort of hash of this neither parties completely is happy with and our lack of ability to be creative

because they understand their issues best estimate to book in i'll go otherwise is i look this strictly i'm trying to look at the university after a determination review otherwise are the planning code that is on a perspective so, you know. there is not permission for adding a 5 foot thing to reduce the depth of the 5 foot thing it is up there that is the one that exists at that time we can argue about some of the other commons but i'm not convinced that is the best um, for everyone once they talk about their needs and everything else i think that a

better project can come out of new york whether i lose my hardline perspective whatever gets passed much better for the parties to workout. >> i concur with almost everything commissioner trasvina and commissioner eppler said but similar to commissioner eppler we prepared to grant the appeal i don't think that is the best um, because of reasons my fellow commissioners stated that the parties seem to alderman burke to negotiate among themselves and we are not the best suited people to for that reason i support continuous request. and also want to add i think, you know. that is very clear to mow should have been heard before the planning commission we're not the appropriate place for

this to be heard but the planning commission didn't hear this matter and ms. roddy appealed to us instead. and being as we are best and the noah review of matters like this i, you know. i'm pretty upset with the process i'm upset for the the fault of anyone in the room but for those reasons i was ready and willing to um, grants the appeal and do this but i wouldn't have known what motion to make frankly that is the best path forward to continue this and allow the parties another opportunity to try to resolve some of the issues and at the

very least come back at a continued hearing date of at least at the at least a narrow set. >> vice president lopez. >> thank you. >> you would also support a continuous for the reasons state hopefully a brief continuous. to address the permit holders interest in controlling costs for project that has been going on for a while. to the extent that is helpful i would telegraph how, how this commissioner views some of the balls that are in the air. i think we've heard the permit

holder essentially say cornice no cornice we can live without that and hired the appellant say not life and death like most things before us. um, you know in my mind we can stay was it presents some imposition on the neighbors enjoyment of the property not at must have in the usable space this junk should go before the appellant. and this one person's opinion. with respect to the relatively now pop out i'm sympathetic to the permit holders efforts to

disswage the needs of his growing family and the dominions and dra which said hey take this one back. and i'm sympathetic if, you know. the planning department is telling us hey we've let this adjustment were they in good faith reconfigured some of the useful space with the new pop out i'm sympathetic to that but at the same time sympathetic to the appellants, you know. privacy needs. i will say and feel a

little bit better about the pop up after seeing the angles that mr. teague shared with us. um, i feel a little bit better about that. you know. when i was compared to operating with the lounge chairs and the hang out opportunity. but i also understand that that is what happens if, if you don't have plans you can up and running huddle that and review with our advisors and discuss, you know. openly with the permit holder and planning in the room and so that is also another reason i support a brief continuous to be able to have those open and productivity conversations.

presenting arguments. >> clearly good faith efforts to get to a good resolution. i guess i'm less have less of a problem categorically if we had to decide this evening i would have less categorically based on it was not included in the dr all that to say again, just one guys use of how i would propose we deal with it if we decides this evening by sounds like we'll postpone. >> before we go to a vote i'm

not a lover of continuous but i'm taken by so wonderful to have put it out there politely people ms. roddy you're awesome we hear we don't hear great manners so often with constructive nature i want to compliment you is rear one of the reasons i don't like continences in the back of my mind they'll have a cat fight it will be ugly i honestly feel you are much nice people with constructive behavior will come back with something constructive

many chaney feel your pain but mr. teague points out a little covid interruption and staff changes i hope a couple of more weeks will not hurt you, too bad i'd like to support the continuous but restrictions i only want to hear three things about the cornice in front and the pop out in back and hear about the pop out on the side nothing he will because or else we're in rehearing mode. okay. so if i could i'd like a respectfully put an appendix on the motion to live only be restricted who is making motion it is with if you john. >> i did president swig but on one hand there are ways to

either trade off matters or matters dealing with that property- >> (multiple voices). >> if this is my fear. >> that's if i think we have empower them to do that. >> let's see - if we can restrict i want them to restrict those and trade the corners for the pop out i like to leave that to them but keep it tight so we're not in a rehearing but only three things the appellant identity is important to her so that's why i pray our indulgence on to augmentation to our motion. >> i'm pleased to accept you're amendments which i would believe to be we're moving to continue this matter for the purpose of

the parties including the city to address the three objections to the current plan and to report on the progress and decisions on those three items. >> or else what happens then you put it in our hands that is really dangerous you don't want to do that and vice president lopez. >> i want to clarify i believe what i understand the motion tobacco and what makes sense to me is that we essentially are limiting a future hearing will address with those three suggestion but in terms of other elements odd of those three items that maybe involved in negotiating more are for a

resolution should be on the table hey we need a bush where one was not there before or something in my mind that may help facilitate the deal making not putting a restriction on what can be discussed in the that i have conversations. >> i am wanting to limit the testimony to 5 minutes. >> three minutes. >> three minutes? >> for both parties. >> three minutes okay. a. okay. direction to the parties is keep it tight and notice how you resolve those three matters if it is revolved by something we have not heard of. >> did that work for you. >> that's exactly. >> can i clarify president swig there is a pop out in the front

and the pop out in the rear and and cornice. >> there is a cornice and pop out in the rear and pop out on the right-hand side that included the bathroom. >> okay. >> okay. and all those were different from the regional set of plans offered at the end of dr. >> would november 15th work for the next hearing would you be prepared at this time to move forward. >> november 15th. >> it's the next possible hearing. >> also on a wednesday a yeah. >> yes. that will be fine. >> ms. roddy. >> you guys are awesome so we you want me to restate i believe your motion or - >> okay. >> yes. >> i gather commissioner trasvina making motion to

continue to november 15th to give an opportunity for the parties to resolve the following three issues the core in his the pop out, on the side, and the pop out on the rear to resolve this with a planning department. is that it and you want a one page statement with exhibits? >> a one page statement by someone should come on with um, showing us how those plans will be chained. >> okay. that's probably the project architect. >> if necessary come to an agreement and yeah. >> we like the one page double page on the wednesday prior to the hearing the friday is a

holiday november 8th e-mail to the board of appeals and you may also watch live at www.sfgovtv.org and have unlimited exhibits an agreement how the plans look attach them as exhibits. so on that motion vice president lopez, aye. >> and commissioner lemberg, aye. >> and commissioner eppler, aye. >> and president swig, aye. >> and that carries 5 to zero and we'll see you in two weeks. >> hello. >> yeah. who at planning. >> corey teague will work with you. >> okay. yeah. >> you have his e-mail address. >> you have corey teagues e-mail. >> ms. roddy do you know how to contact mr. teague? >> [off mic.]

okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks everyone firing patience move on to item 7. >> 7. special item: discussion and possible adoption of the departmental annual report for fiscal year 2022-2023. charter required to issue a annual report gives the public an opportunity to see what we've done and got proposed changes from commissioner lemberg and commissioner trasvina and city attorney for this report. so i thought since i don't believe any member of the public here for the report i don't need to, you know. explain it unless you want to but run through the property change quickly so i'm going to pull the report up and so go.

>> any member of the public who is on zoom? >> is there anyone in the attendees? >> columbia would like to participate in the annual report? >> please raise your hand. >> i think those people were here for the last item nobody is raising their hand. >> i don't know why they wouldn't want to participant alu. >> it is fascinating. >> so the first change on page 4. in the cellar version as you can see that i intended to alternative the colors of columns but didn't for the i'm sorry for the rose for row 2 and three the same color if an alternating scheme this is one change move to page 5 the

substantive change commissioner lemberg thank you. i was appointed by commissioner trasvina i dug up the paperwork and we need to make the correction st. louis was appointed by the board of supervisors on we've, 2022 and sworn in july 27th i will change the appointment date. and then so thank you for that and then in terms of the footnotes commissioner lemberg noted how the commissioners are described more specifically in foot not 4 a reference to a former commissioner where other footnotes on the last name to in consistency removal the commissioners first name and on

to page 8, do i get a footnote. >> so commissioner trasvina pointed out the discussion in the last paragraph is also made in footnote 8 found on page 16 i recommend we delete that. >> and then on page 9 let me the second chart also has the alternating color thank you for that and excuse me - i'm informed you are on mute. >> i was also told that our audio is not coming through. >> can we check with sfgovtv.

>> sfgovtv the people on zoom can't hear me. >> they're saying their hearing me loud and clear. maybe whoever is listening on zoom is on mute? >> pardon me? >> you want me to start over no. >> okay. so i just talked about the change in the second chart of the alternating colors own page 9 and page 12 commissioner trasvina had a good suggestion that the chart should go past or present from left to right like the other charts and page 15. i didn't notice this but the chart

the first time chart commissioner trasvina noted no need for the draft to differentiate half a deal that's my lack of skill in excel thank you for that and we can fix that and on page 20, on the last bullet point the example the e g should be e period g period add a period and comma and thank you, commissioner lemberg and going to page 24. the font in the table at the top of the panhandle is consistently with the table on page 23 we'll make

the fonts consistent that was commissioner lemberg page in the litigation section commissioner lemberg noticed a floating title for the text on page 26 and also at the bottom of page 28 we can move those to flow with the substance of the report and commissioner trasvina on page 26 for the paragraph discussing is zone f case deleting the last sentence which we can do and page 28. okay. so commissioner

trasvina so it is pointed out the trial was scheduled so change from is too was and let me moving on to page 29 commissioner trasvina line three from the top change dwelt with reference to an adu with respect to the chang case in the third paragraph ms. chan it will be her. page thirty, commissioner trasvina suggested we add some dates for that. um, and also

deputy city attorney jan suggested we just want the language for 27 hundred slope i gave you that language in advance and commissioner trasvina wanted consistency for the property owner to be consistent so those are the proposed changes. >> so commissioner lemberg. >> i'll make a motion in a minute the point to applaud boa staff for creating this excellent report but also achieving the 100 percent mark with the timing of our cases which i think that impressive. and also exceeding the 80 percent i applaud all the board

of appeals staff this tells me you're doing your jobs really relay well and move to adopt the annual report with all the changes that was suggested. >> one further comment like to applaud my fellow commissioners on their care to actually read the report and proof read it and conducive comments that make a good report even better. >> and one law review always a law review. >> i have to ask any public comment i see three attendees no hands raised. so we have motion if commissioner lemberg to adopt the report as amended by commissioner lemberg and deputy

city attorney on that motion. >> vice president lopez, aye. >> and commissioner lemberg, aye. >> commissioner eppler, aye. >> president swig, aye. >> that carries 5 to zero and that concludes the hearing. >> see each other in >> you are watching san francisco rising. [music] today's special guest is

mano raju. hi. i'm chris and you are watching san francisco rising the show about restarting and rebuilding and reimagineings our city. our guest is mano raju san francisco's public defender great you could be here. actual at this time us about yourself how you became the public defend and why it is important to provide legal representtation to people that can't afford council. >> i started in contra costa county graduated from berkeley and a liven deputy for you a number of years special jeff recruited me to san francisco the former elected public defender of san francisco and i began as a line department here and then asked me to be training direct and the managers of the felony unit the unit most serious case. after he passed away, i was

appointed to be the public defend and electd and recently reelected. but you know what i think about what you know the story of public to the office i like to start with my parents. they come from a farming village in india and dad was the first in family to finish high school. there were a couple people in his village who saw him and encouraged his parentses to pursue studies and move in the country when i think of what public defenders dot most person thing is to see our clients so than i can hopefully realize their full potential that is important to me and to our office and the cult usual of our office. >> you know the right to a public defender was developed in 1963 in gideon case ensuring the right to a public defender. we take this very seriously in our office. my vision is that anyone in our office should be representing

the people represent the same way they want their love 1s to representd and people think if you have a public defender representing you in san francisco you will bet better than a private attorney. we will leave no stone unturned no motion unfiled and try to perform the highest level for clients >> that's fantastic >> often when people think public defenders they jump to the idea of somebody defending somebody in court your office does more than courtroom representation. >> i'm an elected public dem felonieder i campaigned on that it is important we break the mold of what is public for our office on accomplish. fiercely defending is the core of what we do and that will never go, way. as the only elected public defender there is an elected da and sheriff in every county. in the state but one elected public defender.

it is important our office pushed envelope and engage in the national and state wide and local policy that will impact community how public safety and our clients. we have local policy directors, state policy director. we are active in sacramento in trying to make the law change in order to be more humane system for our clients. we are believer in advocating for community power. we have two 501c3's in bayview and fillmore that are be more magic under the umbrelast public defender's office. these are youth empowerment organizations that do programming throughout the summers. which back pack give, ways to kid school sflois start the school year and believe engaging youth will prevent them from become clients.

and put people on the path to thrive. we have a program, end of cycle program. culturally competent social workers going to the jails and finding out what the individual needs. we'll fight for their best legal outcome in the case. and the position of trust the fifth amendment protects the conversations that our clients can have with us. we can use that to really encourage a trusting rep and telling us what they need and be frank and connect that individual with the substance abuse or mentor or housing or employment and educational opportunities hamp that individual needs to thrive and reach their full potential. that is another piece behalf we do. 17 units across our department and you know we take collaborating across units something we try to do every tail to meet our mission, vision and values >>. a part is ensuring recidivism

does not reoccur >> of course the left thing we want to see is a client to return to be a client again. we work intentionally from the moment we start representing a client with our skilled staff and other members of our team to try to figure out what is that future going to be for the client when they leave our care? >> now, some critics argue public defenders have a heavy case load. how is your office mechanicing this and what issues are most important to you. why we have a heavy case load. unfortunately, this is a problem across the country, public defenders are not funds equal low to da offices our fund suggest 61% of the da office. and the police department has 14 time the our budget. and there is the sheriff's department and any time the entities are detaining our

cloinlt in i way it is up to us to defend this is manage we are working on locally. and alsoination wide to change that. we need more staff and every wing of our office. the logo is greater than one. so we know that we need to be greater twhoon individual in the office and use our teams effectively and strategically and skillfully and put in more hours to make sure we reveal truth and make justice happen in courtrooms. greater than one also symbolizes the fact we are collaborating with other communities organizations to try to support and help our client and move policies that will help our clients. an example of this is the pretextual stop campaign we collaborated with 110 organizations throughout the city to convince the police commission to pass the general order that stops some of the

stops traffic stops for things that don't impact public safety and lead to often con41ational interactions with the police and civil yens and. we wanted to minimize that mostly the shootings we read about and the the violence of inneraction gets in car and tragic occurrence that can happen. by collaborating we can be powerful than the sheer numbers in our organization. >> sure. so you know like cities cross the country san francisco struggling with fentanyl and homelessness, how can our office contribute to help mitigate or solve those problems? >> one thing we can do, again often times with community based organizations; is to really try and figure out how we address the demand. you know. treatment on demand. again. finding people opportunity with

housing or employment opportunity. you know mitigation or just any form of counciling that helps people. move in more positive direction in a way more inviting oppose to co hearsive. now we don't have enough beds for everyone who needs that intensive treatment. contributing to staffers to get more funding for people to get treatment they need. because the reality is there will always be someone to fill the need. we work on the demand, which evidence based there was fee of dealing with addiction will move in a more positive direction. >> then, finally, what else would you like residents of san francisco to know about you and your office? >> i think what i like the san francisco residents to know is how muchow important it is that the public defender be aggressive. right now we had a huge backlog

of cases in san francisco. there were over a housand passed the last day. a right to a speedy try and have case passed the last day. we had to plaintiff and against the court t. is important this we have an independent public defend 30 is willing to do that. and we got a good decision from the court of appeal and now the courts move quick and are honoring this and the effort from policy team to 850 bryant the courthouse is to draw attention to this issue it is important we have an aggressive public defender. had someone gets convicted for something they did not do it impacts their family. clients are greater than one, it is important we fierce low

defend. the same time because when someone gets convicted of something they did not do they are less likely to access the j.w. they need for stability or housing and then will impability a lot of people and lead to more issues on the streets and affect public safety. also to realize we are a public safety organization. we have social workers and take this social worker mentality or support facilitative prop and get cloinlts to a better place. when our clients get to a better place we are all safer >> thank you mr. raju. we appreciate the work. thank you for your interest in the development. you know i wanted to say if anyone wants to know more about a lot of the initiatives and unit in our department they can go to you tube we have a dairy defender series. and people should look at that to learn more about the different units.

also we talked about the dibilltating impact of convictions we have a clean slate program exsponging hundreds of records every year. and people can go to our website sfpublicdefender. org and move their live in a positive direction >> thank you very much. >> thank you >> that's it for this episode we will be back shortly for government government i'm chris manners, t >> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's adjacent sidewalks, local business communities are more resilient and their neighborhood centers are more vibrant and mildly. sidewalks and parking lanes can be used for outdoor seating, dining, merchandising, and other community activities. we're counting on operators of

shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. people with disabilities enjoy all types of spaces. please provide at least 8 feet of open uninterrupted sidewalk so everyone can get through. sidewalk diverter let those who have low vision navigate through dining and other activity areas on the sidewalk. these devices are rectangular planters or boxes that are placed on the sidewalk at the ends of each shared space and need to be at least 12 inches wide and 24 inches long and 30 inches tall. they can be on wheels to make it easy to bring in and out at the start and the end of each day. but during business hours, they should be stationary and secure. please provide at least one wheelchair accessible dining table in your shared space so the disability people can

patronize your business. to ensure that wheelchair users can get to the wheelchair accessible area in the park area, provide an adequate ramp or parklet ramps are even with the curb. nobody wants to trip or get stuck. cable covers or cable ramps can create tripping hazards and difficulties for wheelchair users so they are not permitted on sidewalks. instead, electrical cables should run overhead at least ten feet above sidewalk. these updates to the shared spaces program will help to ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so that we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf.govt/shared

spaces. [gavel] okay good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission for thursday november 9, 2023. to enable public participation sf gov. is broadcasting and streaming this live. and we will receive public comment for discussion and action on this today's agenda. each speaker will have three minutes and when you have 30 seconds, you'll here a chime.