okay good evening and welcome to the january 22nd 2025 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president jose lopez will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by vice president john trasvina, commissioner rick swick and commissioner j.r. eppler. also present is deputy city attorney jen hooper who will

provide the board with any neededegal advice at the controls. is the board's legal system our long way? and i'm julie lamar, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening upfront we have coreyeague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and joseph ospital, the senior building inspector with the department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings no eating or drinking in the hearing room the rules of presentation are as follows appellant's permit holders and department respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these 7 or 3 minute periods members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. mr. long way or legal system will give you a verbal warning 30s before your time is up since the board has a vacancy

only three votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules please email board staff at board of appeals at of aboard now public access and participate are paramount importance to the board as it covers t. s of govt tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda as a gov tv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on t v go to s of tv cable channel 78 please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26 a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at npr.org. forward slash b away now public comment can be provided in three ways one in person two via zoom. go to our website and click on this hearing date and then the zoom link to the right. public comment can also be provided by telephone call one

(669) 900-6833 and enter webinar id eight nine 2566 6293 and again s.f. gov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you're watching the live stream or broadcasts to block your phone number one calling in first i'll star six seven and the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine which is equivalent of raising your hands so that we know you want to speak you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes. our legal system will provide you with a verbal warning 30s before your time is up please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv in the internet. therefore it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there's an interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance you can make a request in the chat

function to hour long way the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals that support now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the room now we will swear in our firm all those who intend to testify . please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed, do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? i do. okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. so item number one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not under tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on

an item that is not on tonight's calendar? anyone on zoom? >> okay. i don't see any hands raised so we are going to go on to item number two which is the election of officers article one section one of the board rules requires the annual election of officers at this time of year. thank you, president lopez and vice president trasvina for your help and service this past year. first we will start with the office of president. are there any members of the board who would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for the office of president? >> yes, i would like to nominate vice president trasvina for the office of the president. >> okay. and vice president trasvina, are you willing to serve in this capacity? >> yes, i am. thank you. okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this nomination? anyone in the room? i don't see anyone. anyone on zoom? no. so we have a motion from

president lopez to elect vice president trasvina into the position of president. on that motion, vice president you high commissioner eppler high commissioner swig. >> so that motion carries 4 to 0 and congratulations and the next office that we will be considering is the vice president. are there any members of the board who'd like to nominate a colleague or themselves for the office of vice president? >> yes. and my button is working again tonight so you'll have to look at my hand. >> okay. i would like is can you is your microphone on, mr. sweig? >> yes, is. okay. thanks. i'd like to nominate j.r. for the vice presidency. >> okay. >> and commissioner eppler are you willing to serve in that capacity? yes, i am. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this nomination? anyone in the room? i don't see anyone on zoom. so on the the motion from

commissioner sweig to elect commissioner eppler as vice president. commissioner lopez i president trasvina. enthusiastically, yes. okay. >> and commissioner eppler. thank you. yes. >> okay. that motion carries 4 to 0 and congratulations and welcome to your new positions. let the work begin. no, it's it's not too bad. okay. so thank you. we're going to be moving on now to item number three commissioner comments and questions. thank you. thank you, ms.. rosenberg. i want to i want to thank my colleagues. i'm not going to i'm not going to promise a golden era for the board of appeals but i am going to commit to diligence hard work and continuing the openness and accessibility, uh, that uh, president lopez over the past year and presidents way or previous years has shown us i've learned a lot from

both. and i look forward to working with commissioner eppler as as the two officers for the board of appeals also continue to have the great assistance legal assistance from jen hubler on the staff work from from from both our staff colleagues and the department the department representatives who come here week after week, the two who are here tonight as well as others from their departments and other departments. >> we have a shared and shared commitment to the people of san francisco and we're all in to do that and look forward to our year together. thank you. thank you. businessweek. thank you. i'd just like to thank commissioner lopez for serving as president for the last year. did a great job and also wish the same great job and try to match his great job by commissioner trasvina. congratulations you ma'am. >> thank you. is any commissioner

commissioner vice president lopez and and vice president eppler. >> yeah. i just wanted to thank my fellow commissioners for for the support and service in the last year. it was it was enjoyable for me to to serve in that capacity. and i just want to state that this this body is in its current composition. i think we have you know, the gift of of members who apply, you know, individual lenses to the matters before us. but we we share a commitment to to service and the role of government and and the the openness and accessibility that that i think belongs in in this in this room for for our work. and i really want to thank also ms.. rosenberg and and alec for four

for their support this year. of course ms.. huber as well. and look forward to the the new leadership in the year to come . >> vice president eppler thank you. no, i appreciate the my my colleagues and i have the honor of serving in this role. it's interesting when i hit the request to speak button. commissioner levy's name pops up and so you know, i. i think about them and commissioner lopez and commissioner torres vineyard served as vice president during my tenure on the board and i hope to sup as l as they they served their respective presidents throughout that that time period. >> thank you. thank. thank you. >> is there a commissioner? and my team wishes to to the new vice president. >> thank you. thank you. and i will follow up with media

services on the pushbuttons. >> is there any public comment on this item? i don't see anyone in the room. i don't see anyone on zoom. so we're going to move on to item number four commissioners. before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the january 8th, 2025 meeting commissioner lopez. >> motion to adopt. okay. is there any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes ? >> i don't see me in the room or on zoom so on that motion to adopt the minutes president just vina i. >> vice president eppler high commissioner sweig. i so that motion carries 4 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number five. the board of appeals budget priorities for fiscal year 2526 2627 basically fiscal year 26 and 27. this is an opportunity for members of the public to

provide the board input on budget priorities pursuant to section 3.3 b one of the administrative code in advance of the board's consideration of these budgets next month. so if there's any member of the public would like to comment on the proposed budget, please let me know. i don't see anyone in the audience. i don't see anybody on zoom. so we will move on to item number six. this is appeal number 20 4-061. sophia yu, lucas wong and rui yu versus department building inspection and planning department approval of subject property 62 santa isabel avenue appealing the issuance on november 1st, 2024 to samuel peck of an alteration permit remove existing exterior wood stairs, new deck and stairs protected by fire rated wall at property line at the rear of 2411 zero one 4190 and we'll hear from the appellants first.

welcome. you can come up and we have you have seven minutes. >> we won't start the time till you're ready. okay. how do i help? how if i want to use that because this one has to show the picture not showing up here but if i want to put that in it you have to set a earlier and we have to start the meeting so you can show it on this if you are willing to show here for

different reasons. no, i want to show that but i also actually have more pictures to show if i do it on on this thing actually does that actually close here you can even on the screen so okay

so it does not show so once someone yes yeah so it's set up and all you have to do is you can push this button down here and i'll show you yeah this is the one you just asked yesterday just yeah. up or down. that's it. you know that's the first one, right? not not that it's this whole

picture. yeah. so as yeah sure. oh okay. >> okay. computer please. thank you. >> so i use this one and you can either either one or whatever's easiest for you. can we have the computer, please? thank you. there's the computer you ready

? >> okay. oh, hello. so theodore commissioner and the vice president lopez and current commissioner. i'm here to actually appeal the vice president. >> travis so sorry about it. okay. thank you. and if you could speak into the microphone, it would be helpful. >> thank you. so just relax and use your time. >> do you want me to restart the time? >> sure. i'm really starting the time. okay. i'm here to actually to appeal for the permission that the permit which is in your jurisdiction. so i plea for your for mercy so i also i am this is my first public speech so bear with me and i'm borderline that thought i might speak very loud and like yelling so so says forgive me for that or that's all. so first actually when my neighbor actually approached me

for their their for the for the for the for the permit and he was actually talking about this one and that this is actually what he's showing me that this design and then the final approved by the city hall the city planner is the same it did not change at all. so the whole conversation he was actually talking to me and trying to get information from me through trying to get his plan approve if he percent that this this the options this three options which he actually that's actually handwritten for the presentation i would actually i would not object at all because those actually is within the reason is within that it doesn't actually impact on me so i will not object to any of the 3a3b to a to b

and option three. so all those three i'm totally fine with it but when it actually gets to my property line it cost problem for me first that the the the floor is including the other including that that that is 13.2ft that's the top of the signs right now okay and that's a solid wall that will block the view from my downstairs which is norman's bedroom a block that blocks the the view from norman's bedroom. you will see it actually what i presented to you because the current fence is six feet and he's building top of that fence so that actually take over and then the that the extent of that back is so huge is actually blocking the picture. i did not exaggerate because the picture i actually measure that is actually exactly like

that is blocking that that's home so that's my only bedroom window so that's despite all the were ever the light coming from that is the light coming to the bedroom norman's bedroom okay so and it actually blocks the light and also it actually if the tack actually next to my property line any guess on the deck from the from the from the from the from the balcony could actually look into the bedroom that last my privacy to the bedroom and also brings the noise to my to my psycho bedroom because currently whenever the party they have the have the far side with the the the the the yard so if if in next to my bit because all my six window is in the back side my bedroom window is on the back of the yard so if i always open my window every day

the day time so if they party i could hear everything and then if because right now they are far in on the on the part end of the yard so i hear the noise but don't hear the conversation but if you bring it to the track the deck is so huge and they will a party on the deck and i will hear that the conversation right next to my window because my window is right next to that spot. okay. all six windows in the back we'll hear the when we hear the noise. >> so it brings that nuisance and also a loss of privacy and also that the stairs and the deck the deck the handrail on the deck is only three inch tall from that upper side of the or the fence and even the is still only three and the hands are up that's three feet. so someone actually standing there could actually easily jump over to my fence because i

show you in my brief before in my brief before i lived into 195 monterrey boulevard and someone actually to actually jump over and use that space to do that are two illegal things. so that's nuisance and that back that stairs from the stairs to the to the fence is only six is seven feet so eight feet already and someone still jumping over and now there's only three feet from the stairs to the top of the fence wall, the top of the fence. so that's only three feet. and he also have some thoughts three sometimes three. >> and then one of the dogs have remember is huge when he stand up and lean against the fence and he passed at me he's almost had actually a tall as i am so he could easily actually charge over and jump into my fence to my my my property so and then that so before there's

a fence actually blocking him he saw me but he cannot get over now the stairs and the deck and the stairs allow him to jump over to my side of the fence and then could actually attack me if i'm in the back back yard. so that actually endangered me . >> you say okay, that's actually that's a private property and no actually another path people trespassing but the property actually i used to live in it has a deck and they also have that area that people jump over and that actually is teenager or the stats and they come over but the teenager teenagers they don't care how hard the site that's the fence sizes etc. they actually just want to actually have fun have to have some everything so because what i want is they only need to go in 30s not at the edge of that

that fence that's all i want because that's just think the if this three options presented to me i'm totally fine with it and this way it doesn't block their son it doesn't block any anything because both sides they have three feet to actually to build their the stairs they could easily built on the on their side inside the bedroom on that and not on the property. >> thank you that's time thank you. we do have a question from president trasvina. >> thank you. i have a couple of questions for you. are you miss you are are you miss okay, great. thank you. i miss you. you mentioned the you mentioned the only the only changes that you are requesting are reflected in two a and two b

and three. is that is that is that my understanding that correct two b and three any of those two options? >> i totally fine with it. >> i have no objection on those plans and on the you mentioned about being able to jump over to your house. all right. the permit holder says that there's a 13.5ft drop from the top of the fence to your property. >> does that and i understanding that correctly yes. but someone that you could easily jump 13 for teenager 13.3 is nothing to that. >> okay. >> okay. all right. and the last question i had is on the on the windows you mentioned it's it's a sacrifice to your privacy. do you have any photographs to show the windows that you're describing? >> oh do you have any in the materials that you provided? >> is there any indication of the any photograph of the window that you're describing?

>> i think that would help you to be able to see it if the overhead please. >> thank you. so this is the window and this is upstairs window and there's another two two windows on the side and three windows on the other side and and here he could actually he could just build his the his they are so right here. >> okay so so which one is which one is your bedroom window that would be compromised this window. >> okay thank you. and also you know go well well that showed me what what i was asking for was overhead and so here's the window the view from

from norman's window. so here's the fence is six feet. so if the six feet on top that's 13ft that's actually totally covered the whole thing. okay. and then it was eight feet tall. that's actually taking the whole thing. okay. thank what i actually showing you that's actually a parking w thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. you can be seated now we will now hear from the permit holder . >> welcome, mr. peck. >> you have seven minutes i like can i have a bit help pulling up my slide deck or commissioner swag? >> i'll make sure i look over at you in a while. >> okay and okay. not yet. thank you. okay.

>> okay. hi commissioners. julie, jen, thank you for your time and attention this evening. my name is samuel peck. i am the owner and permit holder at 62 santa isabel. i'm also representing my wife who is who couldn't make it today she's at home with the baby as i said in our text messages with sophia i just i want to say and reiterate that i understand and appreciate the concerns brought to me by the neighbor. i also want to say that, you know, in our eight years of living together you've been basically perfect neighbors and regardless of the outcome tonight i look forward to the years ahead of good neighborliness in the argument. in my argument today i'd like to demonstrate that the final plan submitted was a result of thoughtfulness both for us for the design and how we're going to use it as well as for our

neighbors and that we've been forthcoming and responsive to their concerns. i'm mostly pulling from my written brief but i'm adding additional context and in response to the argument made so far i'm okay. so the the first response i, i want to address the issue of the noise i'm going to show some of the slide decks now as you can see these are pictures that i took a couple of weeks ago and currently in place is a chain link fence and i would suggest that the noise would be made better if we replaced this with a solid wall right now i especially when the sun is out but we also use the space of the yard that is closest to the

stairs for barbecuing and other outdoor activities. so i would i would think that the noise would be made made better by a solid wall. the next thing i want to respond to is specifically the the claim of blocking out the sunlight. so i understand it is absolutely going to be visible. the wall will be visible and will block some of the natural light coming from the sky but it won't be blocking the sunlight and this is because of the orientation of our homes to where the sun is. so for example in the winter here this is a this is a map of our location and it just shows where the sun rises and where the sun sets. and i included this to show that not only would the sun never cast the wall, would never cast a shadow on their lawn but actually the sun is is

coming from a location such that it would that a higher wall would block our sunlight this is actually relevant because this is one of the reasons why we don't want to build a six foot tall privacy screen as was recommended by the appellant■9 regarding the te handrail being only six foot high and on the security concerns i absolutely acknowledge the the issues that she's had at her previous address as she mentioned or as was pointed out i think that 13ft drop is a an acceptable prohibitive factor to people jumping over at the highest at the lowest it would be no shorter than six feet two inches but it's actually even a foot further■ because even

though the pictures don't really tell it, the line according to the normal hill grade is even a foot lower. so it's a pretty substantial drop but it's also no worse than what it is now a any danger miscreant could climb the fence now and could do that just as easily as as if there were stairs there. and in my eight years of living there again i mentioned this but we've never we've never had that as far as to my knowledge we've never had that issue and i should also call out that i, i do recognize this as a real issue and the appellant claims that we did not change the design and from her point of view i can understand that it didn't it looks like that she never saw that before and after from my perspective this is on the screen now is what the original design was and if i can zoom in i'll try to zoom in. you can see that it really is pretty low there and i thought that that objection was totally

reasonable and i thought that was too low especially given that we have a six foot fence there. so we did change the design. again, i acknowledge that she couldn't have done this from from the materials that we gave her but we did change it to this one. so this incurred a cost on my behalf as i involving the architect to do so. so the plan was changed in response? yeah. in terms of the the suggestions that were brought forth we just felt that they weren't that they were they imposed too much of a burden on us in terms of our planned use of the space we wanted a so let me plot the plot. the plan is just to give an idea of what it looks like. we wanted a contious zone

that is here in the new deck and in a contiguous zone down here. so setting back the wall six feet would be kind of a burdensome design and just not really allow us to take it that full advantage of the space. finally these exhibits came up quite a bit the ones that these are not architectural plans. these are plans that i drew and i included them to show that i had considered including spiral stairs in general according to this process all of the all of the designs that i had considered here which would sidestep the issues that the appellant raises also incur their own issues. so for example each of the ones with the five with the spiral stairs inset into the deck 30s spiral stairs and set into the deck would basically render the deck unusable. this option still has the stairs on the property line and still has those issues and this one was would also bisect the usable space down there. so i hope i made the case that we've been thoughtful of the design for us and the impact on the neighbors. we've been forthcoming with the neighbors reaching out early

often with a hand-delivered note and proactively checked in and we made responses. we made changes to their in response to their opposition. >> thank you. that's time. thank you. thank you. we have a question from president just vina thank you and i can anticipate questions from commissioner swig okay thank you thank you for your for your presentation. i read the materials and i think we all well we always routinely read the materials provided and i'm a little bit less sure of what you are saying after i'm h■lring yrrks s reading the materials. so if i could just ask you a couple of questions. >> sure. when you say the the the plan will not block sunlight but will only block natural light, can you draw the distinction between the two? yes. what i what i mean by that is

that the picture that was included in the appellant's appendix which is this one i think this is this shows that the proposed deck would be visible and would block some sky some view of the sky. but sun never enters that area of the of the sky from this perspective that was what i meant to say the visible sun as well as the sunlight. >> yeah, the actual location of the sun on the horizon is never is always to the right from this perspective. but you're not saying that she's getting the same amount of sunlight. you're just saying she has the same view of the sun. oh yes she has the same view of the sun. >> yes. she may be saying she's getting less sunlight or you're not saying that? >> i am saying she she if the

décor were in place she would receive the exact same amount of sunlight. >> okay. thank you. and can you can you elaborate on the point about you acknowledge that so you you were offered alternatives and you explain at the time those alternatives have too many problems for you to recommend them even though she's saying i'll take any of the three you're saying i offer them with an explanation that those aren't good? yes. you're referring to these designs that that i personally made and and discuss with my wife these i did not share with the appellant so these were just notes that i had for myself as to possible alternatives of how we could design the deck. >> okay. so the changes she's she told

us earlier that you did not make any changes from the time that she spoke to you. yeah. and you're saying today that you made changes but you appreciate that she might not be able to see them or benefit from them? what? >> yes, that the change that was made in response to our meeting was this one this was the only change that was made. so before it looked like this with a low wall of three foot six at the bottom the change that was made was this one and can you describe how that addresses any of the concerns that she has expressed to you? >> yes. when we met in person she had two concerns her and lucas had two concerns. one was that the wall faced a risk of falling over and the second was that the wall as designed this was the first time the wall as designed was too easy for a person to jump

over. those were the two concerns at the time that i understood them right the in response to the first concern we spoke to our structural engineer and basically i asked him for a in his seismic hazard checklist to because i was a little bit worried that because of the on grade that there might be an issue here and he said no, it should be okay the or he didn't say that but the design he submitted a document saying showing that there was considered and the second concern which i thought was a valid and good concern was that it would be too easy for a human to jump over that fence. i agree with that human or dog . so it was in response to the second or the second issue that we changed the design to be like this and can you state what it was before and what it is now the simply height that's

changed the old the first design and the second design or the existing fence and the proposed wall i'm trying to create a sentence of misuse as i met with the permit holder expressed my concerns and he didn't make any changes. now you've told us there are two issues one on the first one you didn't make any physical change. you just got a better assurance from your expert that her concern is a concern because it's going to be okay. so there are no change on that one, correct? >> well, you have made a change on the wall in response to the issue of height or safety. i'm just trying to get on the record as a result of the

meeting and the concerns about the wall previously it was blank and now it is something else. >> got it. as a result of our meeting the original design prior to our meeting was what was on the screen earlier and a design showing the maximum height of the wall at three foot six after we met we revised the design such that the maximum height of the wall the minimum height of the wall excuse me would be six foot to okay thank you. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions so you can be seated. you'll have an opportunity in rebuttal. miss you. >> we will now hear from the planning department needed. >> all right. good evening, commissioners. congratulations, president senior vice president epley

corey teague, zoning administrator representing the planning department tonight. so the project before you as you've heard is located at 62 santa isabel avenue. this is a single family home in an rh one zoning district. the permit in question was reviewed by the planning department on november 1st of last year and it was approved over the counter. the project did not require any neighborhood notice. >> it was also code compliant and it's not within the required rear yard. it's when theithin the permitted buildable area and it was deemed to be consistent with our residential design guidelines just to go over the dimensions of the deck it is essentially nine foot six inches tall along the property line there is a landing and a stair that is combi and about

3.5ft wide and some just to address some of the issues that were raised by the appellant again on the safety issue both the safety of the wall itself that's a building code and construction and inspection issue and we assume that you know fire walls that are built are going to be built to code and safe and we ensure debits to ensure that those buildings are safe in terms of the safety issue of access to the yard, that's not something that's explicitly addressed in the residential design guidelines but as when it's been called out there's currently already a fairly low chain link fence that could you know, as easily as someone could jump down from 13ft high and could jump over a six foot high chain link fence so that wasn't an issue that prevented the department from signing off on that permit. i was going to make the similar point from the as the permit

holder on the access to kind of light and just that distinction which is because of the northern exposure to the rear of these buildings don't get direct sunlight into the windows, into the homes and so there there would not be access issues to access to sunlight or shadows created by the deck and as the permit holder said, it would kind of be the opposite where the initiating would be onto their property due to their to the sun access plain. and then just for reference here, we're talking about a scenario where there's an existing chain link fence and there's a proposal to do this stair and landing and deck with an up to a 13 foot approximately firewall under the planning code they would be permitted either property owner would be permitted to do a property line fence of up to ten feet tall that would be just principally permitted under the code and would also

be permitted just over the counter. one thing i did want to point out because obviously we've had a few cases recently about decks and adjacent properties and privacy and those kinds of issues and i think the last two weeks ago i believe w we had a similar case there was a question about what is the appropriate setback if there should be one should it be 3ft or 4ft or more? and i want to make the distinction here because the in this case there the entire structure is on the property line. but the deck itself is 3.5ft off the property line. again, we make a distinction between just a landing and stairs because those typically are used for access up and down off of the stair and or not use or off of the deck and generally are not considered for this type of purpose to be part of the overall deck. and so this is a fairly common scenario especially at this at this height in this scale to have this type of design and again in this case the deck

itself is deeper and larger. the landing itself is more constrained to a smaller area just to provide access to the stairs. so all of that to say that again the permit is completely co compliant and it was determined by staff to be consistent with the residential design guidelines and was approved over the counter on november first of last year. >> so we think it was appropriately approved. >> if other alternatives are considered we're happy to look at those. i'm sure there are alternatives that would also be co compliant. so happy to speak on any of those as well but otherwise we think the permit was issued in a way that was consistent with the planning code and the residential design guidelines but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you commissioner swick so i'm going to take this opportunity because i didn't hear you but i really want to put it on the record and i really want the my fellow commissioners to hear it. i want to get confirmation on this. you just said that the that a

set of stairs coming down from a deck that is along the property line is not considered part of the deck and in fact in this case being three feet wide, it is a three foot setback, correct? is that what i heard? i just to be clear, i said in this context with this size of a deck and this low of a deck and where you have like an offset where the landing is smaller and kind of so it's physically smaller than the rest of the deck, we generally allow those to be up to the property line assuming there are no other extenuating circumstances. all things kind of being equal we would generally permit those to be on the property line for for a variety of reasons. yes. >> and that the that and that the width of the deck becomes the overall intents and purposes the setback you mean the width of the landing the width of the landing and therefore and therefore the steps going correct going out

okay yeah i think there's i just want to highlight that just for the future. that's why i'm belaboring the point so that when somebody and maybe next week who knows certainly within the next six omebody will come in and and be doing the same argument about set back last year last week we had the ambiguity that existed in in two pieces of document taken one piece said well it's between three and five feet or something i was they were they were not the same and they were both considered guidelines and they were both written by departments in the city that we're supposed to give guidelines. so here's that that's why i'm really trying to hone in on what is a setback that is okay to have it a deck. so another thing to add to our our our quiver of arrows is that in in the case of a deck

like this where there is a small landing and then a stairway coming down from that small landing and the width of that small landing is4) three feet off the property line that is not considered the part of the deck. it is considered a in fact a setback of three feet. >> right. and we don't look at it from a technical perspective in terms of defining the deck and what is and isn't part of the deck because it is clearly all one structure. yeah, but you're correct. i would the thing i would want to stress is that again we we don't have any code requirement around this issue and the residential design guidelines don't address this issue in any specific way. right. it's a pretty vague set of criteria that the presidential design guidelines also the planning commission does not adopted any specific guidelines on how to deal with these. so we're dealing with these at the department level and we're trying to be as consistent as we can the deck hand out we have is like a public

information like an fbi handout and it uses language like typically and on balance because we're often trying to balance different issues, right? it's an issue usually not just one issue we're looking at. we're looking at multiple we do look at it kind of we try to look at it in in the totality. but as i'm mentioning for this type of scenario for this size of deck, for this lower deck where the actual landing is smaller and basically just the landing and the stair. generally speaking kind of no other special circumstance is going on that is typically something that would be permitted along the property line hey, i want us all to remember this because the next time a person comes in here and has a deck that goes to a property line but it includes a stair, we need to remember this. that's all. >> okay. thank you. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. so we'll now hear from gbi. >> welcome senior inspector

ospital. >> he will be our new liaison with tbi. good evening, commsioners and congratulations president cristina and vice president hepler. my name is joseph patel senior building inspector with the department of building inspection. >> the permit before you is a replace a demolition of an existing rear deck and stairs and a replacement in kind with the inclusion of a firewall at property line the permit the approval of this permit application was based on the information provided by the design professional and and the permit holder and the applicable codes of the california building code a deck in san francisco is required to be protected by a firewall when it's built less than three feet to the property line in a fully sprinklered building that distance excuse me and in a

fully sprinklered building it could be three feet from property line beyond if it's a non sprinklered building it's required to have a five foot setback. okay. or per table 7 or 5.5 it can be protected by a firewall which goes from the ground to 30in above the finished floor of the deck and a firewall is designed in such a way that if a structure burns from either side the wall remains in place and protects the property. the deck in question was built to code. it meets all provisions of the code. it meets the provisions of the structural portions of the code which is why you know it was approved over the counter and after reviewing the project you know dbas charge is to protect life safety of the citizens and you know, the city and county of san francisco

and the decking or the deck and firewall in question meets all the minimum requirements of the code. so it's pretty straightforward . >> okay. thank you. i don't see any questions so you can be seated. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone in the room who wants to provide public comment? okay. >> and you're not associated ot. okay. thank you. but i do want to mention that i'm her sister, okay? that's why i live in the neighborhood so i get the postcard from the department. >> okay. that's fine. >> no problem. you have three minutes to address the board. okay. yeah. so i have two issues with it. the firstne is withp4 the 13ft 13.5ft landing place. so when people jump from there to the other side of the property, the other property owners insurance is liable if that person breaks a lake.

so that's my concern. >> and then the second part that i'm concern is that i understand that they wanted to have the wall for the fire safety. >> that's why they make a solid and then some fences call in that one 2000 year run that now you don't need to have 75% of the land as the garden and 25 percentage of the building. so it's a lot the reverse like you can build a house 75% of the house on the property right so that's why they permitted to have the wall there. >> but i think when he said that things our brewery i was hoping you guys can make it a clear definition on the wall if the wall without a roof it should just consider it's a fence a tall fence this otherwise just imagine every

house in suet to start building 75ft long wall with the ram going up to the second floor and nobody else can build their adu anymore. i think this is a bad example. i hope you guys can define that more clearly so that you can build the house because my daughter did the parking on the edu and then i told rules and she's trying to sell you to people to view a house and then because of the six feet cut back it's heart. so they said that okay let's build in some assets so you can next to each other, right? so a long as the wall next to your neighbor don't have openings then it's okay. so that's why they have the wall there and then they think it's okay. but i think that you need to define that a wall without a roof then is just you opening

in these two setbacks six feet . so adjusting the huddle owner consider it. >> but if you're adding the roof through one that you have 30s you have 30s okay yeah. >> so adding the roof that means his property value is going to go up. he'll need to paint more property tax. >> that's why he's considered the current design by thing as a city you need to see the long term for that. >> okay. that's how i thank you so much. >> can you please fill out a speaker card so we get your name correct for the minutes if you can just write your name legibly. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment in the room? okay. is there anybody on zoom please raise your hand. okay norman ne please go ahead . yes, commissioners.

my name is norman i i'm a tenant livin in 56 santa isabel two in the downstairs bedroom and so basically my concerns mainly to one is i think the solid wall is going to impact the that the lighting two to my to my bedroom and the other is basically pces of information about the the noise and privacy concerns. so i was only for the the commissioners will consider like more setback from the fine the wall bogey will be helpful to reducing the the noise and our privacy concerns that's it okay thank you is there any further public comment? okay i don't see any so we're going to move on to rebuttal.

ms. you you have three minutes to address the board. >> right because can you actually show this to screen this one to go back to your computer please? because what i'm saying is they could actually jump from here >> they could actually jump any on the on the on t on the stairs. they could jump over from the stairs. so that's even more than six feet. that's totally fine because currently this house they come over over here that's eight feet tall and they still jump over so 13ft tall to them 18ft and 13ft nothing to that. >> they still jump over and they created that issue. so my concern is my whole concept because if you look at this this one maybe you can adjust the microphone here. >> we want to make sure we get your comments. thank you.

>> so that's actually that's 70 that's how they jump over that this one but their neighbor stairs they jump over and they create all this garbage in my prior my two prior house. >> so that's actually that's that actually means that stairs actually is causing the issue i'm sorry the stairs is causing the issue next to the the party line i am always objecting to that because they should never have a stairs next to the poverty line because people would jump over and if they jump over to my build like she said is jump over to my property and then the brook the lake i'm responsible for it. that's not fair to me. they shouldn't at that burden to me because i am actually

burying the burden. >> i'm burying all the noise, i'm burying all the sunlight laughing so the value of my house property is actually the value on that by building this fence next to the wall because i always object that so even three feet in is totally fine from then because the commission is supposed to be three feet in the stairs from the poverty line and that that's what i was researching on the on the on the website i'm a cisco website from the city planning website is therefore suggest the three feet in 3526332■g■7 five feet io i'm totally fine with that because that's part of reason i say okay the loss on my side and they should actually follow that rule but now actually they they said it is irrelevan that's not irrelevant. >> that's my that's my people's

concern because i'm already picked them. this is would be the second time on my with the mice by it 30s and also that the thing is actually they actually is blocking using that those actually does but using this one that's the that's the one guard to actually above the stairs above this there's a computer for this this one over here because on the stairs over. >> thank you. okay that's fine. thank you. thank you. >> vice president eppler. thank you. thank you for your testimony. do you have a question will fast is there there's an alleyway between behind your your building is that right? can could you please step back up so i can hear with the

microphone please? >> yes that's the three that that that the alley is free for everyone to drive in. >> do you have a fence on the back back of that of your property between you and the alley. >> yes in my property. >> my my my mom used to actually live downstairs. okay. and she actually claims someone actually went into my backyard can correct and then they actually have me man. >> i mean i might get to that that that point the second what what's the height on that fence the fence is six feet. >> okay and has anyone jumped from the alley okay. >> yeah. all right. after someone actually left a big stoop of okay. oh that's that's that's in my backyard. okay, understood. >> thank you. i was just curious about that. thank you very much. okay. thank you. further questions. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. mr. peck, you have three minutes. yeah. just on that point again, i

have i have sympathy for the history experienced by the appellant. the thing i would point out is that we are not making the situation any worse with the construction that we're proposing here at at at thent tl will be at the same height as it is at as the current fence is now. and again i'm hoping that this is generally an improvement with regards to the concerns about light and privacy on the on the back window this was the window that was pointed out and again on on on the subject of privacy. i just want to because i did consider that quite a bit. again, a solid wall to me hopefully is represents an improvement for privacy than the status quo which is a fence which allows me to look right through it as i'm doing it here in the picture here i have no other statements. okay.

thank you, commissioners. any questions? nope. okay. thank you. will now hear from the planning department. thank you again corey teague for the planning department. just a couple quick points just to clarify again the planning commission does not have any adopted policy on these types of scenarios and what setbacks these kinds of decks should or should not have. they have approved projects in the past that are basically these types of scenarios with landings and stairs on the side property line. again we look at a lot of different factors that we're trying to balance related to privacy, light etc. also the the deck information handout the three foot setback that is for was basically telling people what it says is that typically if you have a low deck like this and you provide a three foot setback the deck can be approved over the counter is about a convenience

thing if you want the easiest approval path this is what it is. that doesn't mean there's one factor in other scenarios there's not a case that we might not require a bigger setback or allow less of a setback. it's just if you want it approved over the counter quickly generally in that scenario providing that three foot setback is kind of typically the best route to that. so as i mentioned, there's other factors we always have to consider when looking at the totality of a project that could impact how we exercise that design discretion on a deck. so i just wanted to be kind of clear on that and again just to reinforce that we think the per the permit as it was approved is consistent with the code and the design guidelines. i'm available for any questions . >> thank you. president trasvina thank you. just just briefly for any any of the testimony for tonight is do you have any question that of code compliance in this matter not of code compliance? >> absolutely not.

anything else any other concern? no, we do not have any other concerns. >> thank you. okay. thank you. >> commissioner sweig, did you have a question? yes, i did. sorry, miss t did either you and i can respond to it if the answer is no from mr. teague. anybody looking in the immediate neighborhood or on that block for light conditions ? well, i can't speak for the planner who approved it over the counter. i didn't really look at that here for a couple of reasons. one, i don't know that there's relevance. >> i mean we're going to i don't know that there is either i mean we're just to write testimony is that well 17 other people have it on the on the block so why shouldn't we write i was just wondering if yeah i mean sometimes that is relevant to set the context. yeah if there's an argument about this is atypical or unusual and you want to provide a counter argument that it's not atypical and it's actually very typical i don't think that's really the scenario

here. i mean i think obviously these types and levels of decks and firewalls are very common across the city because this is how people, you know, get access to the rail yard from upper levels in the city. >> so i don't think there's anything unusual about this. i think the thing that's actually kind of unusual about this is that the proposal stops and the the chain link fence continues. usually people do a continuous solid fence down the line. >> so i think if anything that's what's a little bit more atypical here other than that you would consider this typical not out of the norm and that's what people do in san francisco and they get it approved all the time. >> yeah, i would say this type of permit and project is is consistently approved over the counter. >> okay. thanks. sure. thank you. you can be seated. we'll now hear from dubai commissioner swift, answer your question before this meeting i

did do a google maps search and i i don't know the exact numbers but i would venture to guess that probably on that block 25 to 30% of the properties have decks in the rear yard that aren't that aren't much different than the deck that the that the permit applicant is proposing. >> so thank you. okay. thank you. so i don't see any questions commissioners this matter submitted i want to thank the the parties and the testimony from the public and from our from our city agencies. we now have this matter before us. i'd like to turn to one of my former president colleagues to start off the discussion. >> would either one of them like to volunteer to start? sure. mr. swig i don't see any problem with this.

this permit is compliant. it's reasonable efforts were made to make it reasonable alternatives were looked at which were less feasible and acceptable to the permit holder and the permit holder didn't seem to try to exceed and push the envelope with regard to getting something more as we see quite often. so as mr. tiegs said it looks good to me is fully compliant. so i would deny move to deny the appeal on the basis of the permit excuse me was properly issued. >> vice president hepworth do you have any comments? no, i want to i want to acknowledge that you know, the appellant has had has had, you know, some very bad experiences with respect to people accessing her yard. unfortunately, you know, with

this particular permit i don't feel that this stair plan, you know, increases the danger of that in the future. you know the access is from you know, to to that deck is principally from the the people that live there would have to come through the house to get there. the the main i you know concern i could see from access is from that back alley and you know i understand that that that that could be a problem but i don't see a safety concern related to this particular permit in this circumstance and yeah i and i otherwise agree with commissioner swick as president lopez thank you. yes i concur with with the the remarks of my fellow commis■jsioners. i think it's a it's a good project, reasonable code compliant. i also acknowledge the the comments of the appellant, the members of the public related to safety and intrusion issues

. i just don't think that that the project materially changes that risk profile and believe i will support the the motion of commissioner swick thank you and i'll add that while i appreciate all of all of the testimony, what we're really focused on hereoday is code compliance and it is clear that this is a project that has been that is code compliant. there may be some other issues that that may relate to the appellant seeking more attention or more or more give from from from the from■o■q the permit holder but that's that's a matter that that is really beyond our beyond our jurisdiction beyond beyond our discretion and we're really looking at code compliance here and i we we have we have that in this matter. so commissioner swig has a motion before us to deny the to

deny the appeal. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swick to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion. >> commissioner lopez i president trasvina vice president eppler all right. so that motion carries 4 to 0 and the appeal is denied and that concludes the hearing. >> thank you. no other matters before us. >> the meeting is adjourned

[music] >> we are open at mission shelter so we take any animal, any condition, any specious from rucoons to cats to dogs to fish to lizards. we take anything. we do adoptions, which is a important part of our rk, but it is a small portion of what we do. we take in custody animals which has been a huge increase in what we do over the years. a lot of the animals here are custody animals that can't be adopted. they come in here because of domestic violence. we have a program called safe pets where we protect a pet from a victim. we take animals from people who have been evicted and burned out of their homes. because of cruelty and are neglect investigations. the last few years have been incredibly challenging for the shelter because we are at capacity for animals pretty much every week.

we have a lot of partnerships. first, friends of san francisco animal care control. they help us with staff so they give funding so we can have behavior and training staff and care and control. we partner with full belly bus. full bully bus does a monthly pantry and also partner with the sheriff office, the prisoner legal services unit. they help us get in touch with own ers that are incarcerated and may not know their animals are here what the process is to redeem their animals and also partner with vets and vans, which is a incredible low cost veterinary service clinic. we partner by giving them access to some of the veterinary equipment to help out,and through this we realized the need was so great that we partnered with cal for all animals and through them we got a $150 thousand grant that helps residents these

veterinary services. >> through the mayor financial justice project, san francisco animal care and control partnered with sf human service agency and the department of homelessness and supportive housing. we utilize their data base, income verification data base in order to check which clients qualify for needed services. we call the program gap so the guardian assistance program. since implementing we waived $190 thousand and we helped 556 program participants. humans surunding animals to us we provide resources through our veterinary access program, our guardian assistance program and food pantry, so that we are hoping that these individuals can keep their animals instead of surrending us, and we are able to utilize our and who have no where else to go. >> we have always endeavored to keep pets with their families.

that really didn't change. the response from residents that have been able to stay with their pets thanks to these programs, has been nothing but grateful. most of-especially through in my career what i have seen is most people do not want to surrender their pets. they think it is better way to provide a better life for their animal but the best thing is to stay in their home with people that know and love them. all these opportunities can provide a way to look at it a differently, shake otthe logistics and get through the crise you are in and hopefully keep 84 family in tact. >> really proud of the management team at animal care and control, because they are creative, they are collaborativin the forefront of their minds. how can we help the animals and the people who have these animals? they worked with departments from across the city, organizations

outside the city. they pulled everything together in a way that lpanimals and their people. when things are tough here we always say we are not a bunch of different divisions we are one department. i can say it shows in this project and they show that every day.

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments.

it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪

so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] >> a lot of people might ask

why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food.

we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important.■z■v

♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san

francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city.

pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure atound and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪

>> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've ■been eating thi ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪ >> my name is carmen, the owner of the bakery in san francisco on 24 and mission.

the bakery, usually typical mexican bread, sweetbread that is popular for the kids, for the families. big families. a lot of croissants. we have recipes from central america-we are trying to keep up with the customers and neighbors. i bought it in 1993, so i was--i knew from my dad. for many years i grew up with the knowledge. now i know a little more.

[music]

. >> the pledge of allegiance. allegiance to the flag. nation under god indivisible. >> fire commission regular meeting january 22nd 2025 5:00

pm. the time is