can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf dot gov slash shared [chain saw whirring] [growling] listen, you are extremely terrifying-- just the scariest undead thing on tv, and i really mean that. i am worried that you could give my kids nightmares if they see you, so i'm gonna have to block you. [sighs] so, that's it. oh, and tell the zombies they're blocked, too.

. okay good evening and welcome to the february fifth, 2025 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president john trasvina will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by vice president jerry eppler and commissioner rick swig. commissioner lopez is absent tonight. also present is deputy city attorney janet huber who will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls as the board's legal system. alec 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 corey teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and joseph ospital 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. appellant's permit holders and department respondents each were given seven minutes to

present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 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 our 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 are hearing schedules. >> please email board staff at board of appeals that s.f. borg now public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. s.f. gap tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item onoday's agenda. as of gov tv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on tv. go to s.f. gov 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 s.f. gov dawg

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 the hearing for today's date. you can also provide public comment by telephone call 166996833 and enter webinar id 84887327897 and again se of gov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you are watching the live stream or broadcast to block your phone number one calling in first i'll star six seven than the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine which is the 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 and 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 and the internet. therefore it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers otherwise there is 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 allow long way the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals that as of borg 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 or physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm 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 that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

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 on tonight's calendar. >> is there any member of the public who would like to provide general public comment? i don't see anyone in the room . anyone on zoom i don't see any hands. so we're going to move on to commissioner comments and questions. >> thank you, miss lamar. i want to welcome everyone to tonight's hearing. i also want to note that while it has come in disfavor in washington dc at least in the administration, it is black history month here in city hall and here for the city and county of san francisco and of somewhat relevance to to our work. when san francisco and san franciscans come together i recall back in 1958 when the

giants moved here from new york over at 175 mayor long away willie mays was not allowed to buy a home and it took the city of san francisco including mayor christopher who said to the member of the housing community who wouldn't sell it to willie mays. >> he said if you're not going to sell to william and sell it to me and i'll sell it to him, the reluctant homeowner back down and willie mays was able to buy his home. also over in partner said the very first case of the fair housing act that went all the way to the united states supreme court was a challenge against apartment said on the important theory of neighbors have the right to live in an integrated housing and neighbors have a right under the fair housing act. >> it had to go all the way to the supreme court. but san franciscans took that all the way to the supreme court and they won with a unanimous unanimous decision was the first case challenged

challenging challenging by part and was the provision of the fair housing act. >> so we often have challenges ahead of us but san franciscans come together on important issues and i think those are important things to recognize during black history month. >> so i welcome everyone to to our proceedings. >> mr. swig on a far lighter note but thank you for the segway convenient segway and by mentioning willie mays last year and the only time in my life it was two for two for february 4th 24 and it was willie mays day in san francisco. today i had the opportunity on to 5 to 5. it's not going to happen again and in my lifetime to celebrate barry bonds day in san francisco. so i congratulate barry bonds on having his day in san francisco. and it is important that in 1958 the giants moved to san francisco and we all have

benefited from having a wonderful team here and great players like barry bonds and willie mays so happy barry bonds day. >> thank you. we look forward to tito fuentes day next year and juan marichal day in 2027. commissioner eppler now that that note knowing your jersey numbers, that's a hard act to follow. i figured i might as well get into the act. there was a matter before this board not too long ago regarding the renovation of a spray park in dogpatch. >> i wanted to report that to day. the fully renovated asbury park opened for business so anyone who wants to check out the rec park's newest brightest sunniest open space come down to minnesota 19th street and take a look. okay. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? anybody on zoom? i don't see anybody.

so we're going to move on to item number three the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the january 22nd, 2025 meeting. >> i move that we approve the minutes. >> okay. is there any public comment on that motion? anyone in the room? anyone on zoom? no. so on the motion to adopt the minutes president trump avenue. >> hi, commissioner sweig. i see that motion carries 3 to 0 and the minutes are adopted. >> we are now moving on to item number four. this is appeal number 20 4-066. dan feldman versus department building inspection planning department approval subject property 695 rhode island street appealing the issuance on december nine, 2024 to charles kwok of an alteration permit remodel of an existing two story two unit residence scope of work to include new rear or horizontal extension at existing lower level first and second floor and new

vertical addition of third floor facade alterations including a new garage door driveway and curb cut. >> this is permit number 2019 1220 0232. and as i previously let you know, the permit holder and the planning department would like to request that this matter be continued to april 16th and they will address the board. we can hear from the planning department first. you have three minutes. >> okay. thank you. good evening, president christina and commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator for the planning department. originally i was going to come and recommend that the planning that the board of appeals not grant the appeal and approve the project. it went through planning department review and a discretionary review process back in 2019 and 2020 and was fully co compliant at that time. however, when preparing for this hearing i did realize an

unfortunate oversight which is there was a large change to the planning code last year that changed many parts of the planning code including our rear yard requirements. and in a lot of ways it made your requirements more liberal. but there were some situations where projects in the past had actually been able to have their rear yard go all the way to 25% and now the rear yard requirement has been made consistent across all residential districts at 30% and that is the case is what happened here which is when the planning department reviewed this project back in 2019 and 2020 it was allowed to average all the way to 25%. in the meantime, the planning code was amended to make that requirement 30%. you can no longer average the 25%. so when this permit was actually issued at the end of last year, it was not at that time consistent with the with the planning code. so i've had that conversation

with with the permit holder. as you may recall, the way the planning code works is law. the day like the permit when it's issued has to be fully co compliant unless there are grandfathering provisions within the code itself. and there were no grandfathering provisions here. so the reason we're requesting the continuance is to give the permit holder on time because they were not made aware of this until just the end of last week. it's time to explore their options and decide how they want to move forward. those options range from revising the plans to be consistent with the current code. they also have the option to go forward and request a variance or a variance and if that was to be issued then that would allow the existing permit to move forward in a in a co complying manner. but they need time to figure out which option they want to choose and actually take the time to go through that process whatever they do choose.

so that is why from the planning department's perspective we would recommend and support there is a continuance of this case to april 16th and be available for any questions you may have. >> thank you, commissioner sweig. >> can can you tell me i'm i'm okay with your recommendations but when something like that that like this happens, why isn't just the ten folded the the permanent abandoned and then a refiling of the permit occurred just to you know to wash off the blackboard and make it clean again so it's going to be the same issue don't be the same deck but it just has to comply to a different set of standards. so what is it why isn't it easier just to pull up the kill the permit and reissue or sorry and re apply well i would let

the applicants speak for themselves but what i can tell you that's objectively true is that would be much more expensive because obviously the permitting process and with this process this permit in particular had to go through like a specific geotechnical review because of the that it's on. so all of the money that they've invested over the years in this specific permit would basically be lost. that's that's one of the big issues. additionally i don't db i can speak to whether or not there's any big changes that would affect potentially affect this project. but unlike the planning code the building code you you kind of lock in when you apply so you could if they withdrew this permit and found a new one they would theoretically be potentially subject to newer building code requirements that they weren't subject to for the 2019 permit. so that would be another reason. the other reason is that we are we're kind of at the appeal situation. it's a project that the planning department supported even before finding this issue given the fact that the appellant also was the d.r.

filer, if we were to withdraw here and go through that process with the new permit seems reasonable to conclude we'd be back here with that permit as well. >> so kind of all of those reasons would be a rationale for continuing with this process with the permit as it is here now and then as needed either make amendments to it or allow the variance to go forward and if the variance is successful then the permit would not be needed to be revised to be co compliant. >> thank you for i'm glad i asked the question. >> thank you for that very clear answer. okay. thank you. can be seated. do i want to weigh in? no. okay. so we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon. >> victor marquez speaking on behalf of the the project sponsor through the chair. good afternoon. also commissioners have learned

sweig. good to see you all. we concur with city administrators tiegs presentation 100%. this is a great project and as mr. teague has indicated, it's been a process since 2019. we've complied with every single thing that has been asked by planning as well as by the neighbors. this appellant has appealed every possible. he has used every possible opportunity to appeal the project. it would be very detrimental to the overall project if we were to through our commissioner swig if we were to do a new permit. it doesn't make any sense. it would change the entire project. so we're leaning towards seeking a zoning variance but we don't want to be necessarily committed to that at this point. we need that extra time to study that. as we just got notified january 31st of this unfortunate effect of the regulation or the new

code that happened that went into effect in january of 2024. so we will be back in front of you hopefully sometime in march if not by if not in april to to look at the zoning variance and then we hope that we can be back before you sometime in may june at the latest on the appeal or appeals because we anticipate that if we do file the zoning variance request that that will also be appealed. as has been the pattern of this appellant who did not bother to file a brief did not file it to notify us why he's appealing. and so it's unfortunate and ultimately the only reason that he's doing this is because he has alleged that this project is going to block his views which is really sad when it's bringing up a really beautiful it's beautiful design . the architects are here. they did an amazing job. they've complied with everything. the codes at the time when we found all of the the application signs and we took a

dilapidated building we the sponsor and it's going to be a beautiful, beautiful building that will beautify the neighborhood. thank you. >> if you have any questions i'm available and so is the architects. thank you. >> commissioner sweig has a question. yeah. do we have any. you implied you may be back in march. >> you may be back in april. do we have a date for april 16th? april 16th is going to be the request today. yes. obviously you guys are available and and we're going to check with the appellant who didn't bother to respond that and tell him that that's our date. yeah. so april 16th. >> yeah. all right. thanks. okay. thank you. you can be seated. thank you. we do have to call out dan feldman as the appellant. i don't see him on zoom and he's not in the room so he had an opportunity to address the board on this. and just for the record i emailed him several times and i

called him as well and left a voice message asking him if he intended to pursue the appeals since we didn't receive a preliminary statement or a brief and he never responded and i know that the planning department also reached out to him. so with that and he's not appearing, we will now move on to public comment. is there anyone here who would like to provide any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised but i don't think it's for this item . is this amy lee? please go ahead chao show tao your hand is raised. oh. >> oh, all right. yeah, sorry. okay, no problem. okay, so i don't see any public comment on this matter so commissioners this this is matter submitted for your consideration the request to continue this item i am persuaded there there's both good cause and no opposition to the request for a continuance i would move to continue the

matter to april 16th 2025. >> okay on that motion and the reason being to give the permit holder more time to evaluate his options. yes. okay. on that motion vice president eppler i commissioner swick i so that motion carries 3 to 0 and the matter is continued. thank you. okay so we are now moving on to item number five. this is appeal number 20 4-067 john withers versus department of building inspection planning department approval subject property 329 grafton avenue appealing the issuance on december 3rd, 2024 to chow chau tao of an alteration permit revision to permit number 2024 0314 7782 first floor relocate laundry units hall bath and kitchenette at a window in each bedroom second floor new deck at the rear of the building and closed dining room to locate additional wall space in the living room remove pocket door in the kitchen.

this is permit number 2024 1126 5716 and we will hear from the appellant first. mr. withers, welcome. you have seven minutes to address the board. >> thank you all for taking me this afternoon and i really appreciate the fact that you acknowledge black history month. thank you so much for that. my name is john withers. i reside currently at 333 grafton avenue san francisco and the plane is beside me is 329 right directly beside me. >> i have been living in that property for this year will be 38 years my wife and i who is now deceased we lived there until when we had small children. we have never had any problems with any neighbors whatsoever no more than the few who apart dates to our driveway and we couldn't get out. well we resolved that issue over the years by putting a red zone on each curve side to make sure that that is not a problem generally speaking over the

years that we have dealt with people within our neighborhood as far as build them they had the consideration to come forward and tell us that if there was going to be anything that was impeding on our privacy they would let us know whether it was going to be no us or whatnot. well within the last year and a half when they and started at our place our house is built up right beside them and if you could show a picture of the front part of our home oh yeah, it's on the computer. >> okay just take a moment here and show you the front part so you get a better idea of what's going on overhead. >> please computer or laptop if you give me the front, do you have the picture of the front? these ones you can just go. okay. okay. okay. but some you can use this to

kind of school. which way? right here works this way? yes. this little pinwheel you can kind of okay. all right, great. this you've got a little indication here. >> this is my backyard and i go back here want to get a picture the front so you get a better idea what's going on here. still picture the backyard. this is a picture of their home with the new one that they just put in now on this side of that and they have also to windows patio windows that they put in patio doors and another window on the right hand side and the left side that's their property there that they just began to build. i've never had any problems whatsoever with those neighbors because these are new neighbors

and they are not going to even be living in the property. in fact, amy tao and her husband she's the real estate agent and he is the contractor i walked over there about in fact i didn't know that what was going on and i received this notice right here. i tried to get a hold of the contractors that was working down temporarily and no one could speak english. and so the first time i heard that there was actually contractors that was in their assumption for them know us that was knocking pictures off of my wall and waking up my grandchildren because i had my daughter and her husband and two small grandchildren living with us for a year and two they previously bought a home in san francisco which is a condominium and so i walked over to try to converse with them. >> can we pause the permit holders sent me a message that she cannot hear the hearing. i apologize for interrupting because just pause the time the permit holder is time has

passed. >> one moment so apologize. she just sent me this message mr.. can you hear? yeah i can't we can't hear you. can you unmute yourself? >> try it again. okay. can you unmute yourself? i know you did it earlier you have okay could you speak can you say something? i think she's on her phone. so alex do you have any technical advice you can offer her? um is your volume on volume or reconnects this? >> maybe she should call it. can she hear can you wait if you can hear us she can't hear

us. >> okay, let me send her message and see. >> she said her volume is on so maybe i will suggest that she call in i guess i mean should work. >> i don't see why she's online. her phone is online. she can raise her hand because we can see you and you're raising your hand. >> it's just a matter of sometimes if the side of your phone the switch if you click it up maybe that could be a problem.

okay. and can we confirm with s.f. gov tv that other people can hear you know, maybe it's not just her. >> yeah. there you go. thank you. oh, okay. >> we can hear you. i can hear you now. okay, great. what was the issue? >> oh, actually i don't have any issue but i mean no, i just want to know the technical issue so we can yeah, yeah, yeah. >> because i cannot hear you before. okay. okay. so we're going to put you on mute right now and we'll get you will be our turn shortly. >> so sorry mr. withers, you want to add time or time or president just media do you want to should we restarts and she didn't hear well she needs she needs to hear so i don't know when to start how much over i let's start over okay okay thank you mr. with us again my name is john withers

reside at 333 grafton avenue for nearly 38 years and never once had an issue with the neighbors coming in and go on assumption that people that who would not live next to our block there was sometimes and east to our driveways and whatnot when my wife and i we moved in 1987 and we were considered at that time probably the youngest couple that's on the block today i'm considered a property oldest man that's on the block. any time someone would start a project into our homes whether it was small or large it was all i always consideration of the other neighbors to let us know what was going on as far as permit is concerned or what is whether it was going to impede on our privacy or the noise control or whatnot. i do know this project here at 329 was started sometimes in in february, maybe march or april of 19 2023 and i didn't even

know that there was a project that was taking place until the noise was real and knocking pitches off of my wall and because our house is right up beside their home and no one never said anything to me i accept that they had construction trucks that was also blocking our driveways and occasion with that so we tolerated that at least i did because always in and out of my house because my past of a church and whatnot and so i'm gone and i'm doing hospital visit it's for animals weddings and whatnot. but when i received this notice the first time i received this notice that they were extending the house in the back in december 2024 i received this notice and i had a few days before i could refer back to it and respond. that's when i made an appeal. i had no idea that they had added all those rooms and then it was the first time that amy got a hold of me when she got

my email and she said can we talk and can you meet me at my house? so i got it i guess on the 17th of december and we met that following monday at our house because that's my day off and we walked to the house i really wasn't interested in seeing the home perception of the window and all the rooms that was in there and when i confronted her i said oh my god, that's a lot of rooms in here and a lot of bedrooms, a lot of windows and whatnot. and then i saw i walked on the back side and i saw these windows right here computer place that there. >> yeah. this this is her back with a deck that i didn't even know anything about that was a deck being built and as a one on the side there and there's another sliding glass window perpendicular to that right there well another one on the other side that one that to the right here that small wonder you see it's looking directly

into my backyard and they are building a deck. and so i asked amy i said listen that's that's a quite a few rooms in here. i'm wondering is that going to be a lot more vehicles which is none of my business but it does concern me with the neighborhood and whatnot because we can't even find in the parking as of today. >> and she said that that's not my problem because i'm not going to be living here. so she's renting the property out to whomever and i can tell you that i saw at least five bedrooms and maybe three baths and i know that she had a house across the street. >> she did the same thing to that. and so i just asked her, hey listen, can you remove those windows right down so it doesn't impede on my property, my privacy? >> and she said that the windows have been there. those are not new ones where you can see right there apparently they are new windows because they are still building the project. they did not stop any of the work until this week.

>> so because i continue to hear all types of noise that was going on in their property log bottom line i'm a peacemaker. i'm not a troublemaker. i just want to do what is fair and what is right. i want one little privacy that i got to stay eight our without impeding on my time and amy is all about getting this done and i understand that her husband's a contractor. she's a real estate agent and and that's the way it is at this point in time. the point of it is i don't want dare problem to be my problem and that's my final say. >> any questions you have for me? >> thank you president trevino. thank you for for your presentation. unfortunately we did not receive a brief from you which makes it difficult for us to be able to fully evaluate

everything you're saying as one of the one of our procedural rules is to have a have a brief from both sides so the other side can hear the complaint is and we can fully understand it the city can comment on it. so if i if i if i could ask you to be very precise is the issue that you're coming before us on one window and as it relates to your privacy, are there multiple windows or is there anything else? the only two one that some concern about was the one that i showed the patio door and that one is set up because that's a a deck on the back that has another patio and another one. and i would also ask for your opinion that i can get some more clarity on the fact of a brief and because i did write up a summary of what was going on when i got this information so i don't know maybe i'm confused about your briefing right.

well just again back to back to my question there is the side window that you showed us. right. and a concern of privacy. right. and then the patio door. what is the concern there? is it also privacy or is there something else? well, i'm concerned now because i didn't know that was there that they had to walk inside doors that was there that lots overlooks my property and my fence line. so my concern now is that patio door as well as that one. >> yes. and the your concern on the patio door also goes to privacy. >> yes. thank you. thank you. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. you can be seated. okay. so we'll now hear from the permit holder mostly you're on zoom you have so yes, yes, i'm here. >> welcome. >> you have seven minutes to address the board or actually i don't have a too much comments on the on the appeal because

everything that we did is according to the permit and then i we because i'm contractors they license and then we know what we are doing and then at the very beginning john appeal our back permit and so that's why we invited him to come to our houses to take a look at what the size of the tag and how big is the tag and how it will be offered or his pay would see oh he is sunshine or something but after he came to our house he feeling that that is okay and then he figure out the window is a problem because the he said he can see the his backyard but honestly i just

say we we do everything is according to the permit and the print so i don't have any other things to say. okay. thank you. we have a question from president trasvina. mike, my question so you've heard mr. weathers testimony today, correct? yes. and you heard him speak about the when the sliding door and the small and the smaller window are actually he or is at the beginning because the permit that we got on a 2024 the full plan does including everything but right now he is appealing the back not the window at that understanding well after i get to my house okay i don't want to argue with you about what is being appealed because the permit the

permit is being appealed and the permit as i understand it includes the window. my question is now that you have heard whether you've heard it before or whether you've heard it today, his concern about privacy as to the sliding door and as to the window, is there anything that you can do or are willing to do to accommodate his expressed concern about privacy and i don't think so. we we do have but more than like a ten drop so a yearly and we do everything just according to the permit and the footprint we go through with the planning we go for with a building and we doing everything according to the code so i can't because i don't feeling the window and on the patio door will be a flat he is i would see thank you.

>> okay thank you. i don't see any further questions so we here we will hear from the planning department. >> okay. thank you. good evening again president commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator for the planning department again this is the appeal of the building permit at 329 grafton avenue so the existing property is a single family home zoned rh one and it's in the ocean view large residents special use district. it's important to note i think it was reference that this permit before you is revising the scope of a previous permit that was issued in 2024 that was kind of the the primary renovation permit kind of interior renovation permit. this new permit does a few things primarily by adding the

deck at the rear and in terms of the planning department's review of this permit and the planning code and applicable guidelines, the deck itself is kind of similar to some of the cases we've seen lately. the deck is less than nine feet tall and has three foot setbacks on each side and the two adjacent properties both also have essentially one story decks at the rear and the existing home has a similar depth of the to buildings that is adjacent to the deck itself is completely co compliant. they're maintaining the required rear yard. it is also consistent with the residential design guidelines and our deck handout based on its height, depth and the setbacks because of the minor nature of this scope it is not subject to any neighborhood notice requirements under the planning code or any planning department policies and so because of that the permit was reviewed and approved over the counter and we believe that

permit was it does mean all the code and guideline requirements it was an appropriate and correct approval of this permit. i don't think there were the actual building permit plans were provided. i don't believe i did ask the permit holder for a copy of the plans and i did receive a copy of their their plans. they're not the stamped approved by plans but they are what i understand to believe that to be the scope of work. so that's that's also something i can share on the overhead if needed but i'm available for any questions you may have but overall recommend that you deny the appeal and uphold the permit. thank you. thank you commissioner swig then president trasvina. >> so in listening to testimony i understand that this is the supplement to the original permit and that and what i was

what i was getting confused at in the in the in the testimony as as the appellant was talking about ongoing construction was or how can they be doing ongoing construction of the permit as and have permits under appeal but then in fact it is just it is an addendum so they are they have been permitted to build along correct? right. there was a previous permit issued in 2020 for that was for interior work. i think there's some electrical work that were on the ground floor is converting some space to additional bedrooms etc. that permit was was issued but then this permit represents a revision to that scope of work which includes adding the deck right at the time an addendum is done. is there a scratch that place?

the other thing that you just testified on was that there you couldn't reconcile to any plans or you couldn't find the plans, the original plans that on which the permit the original permit was issued, correct? >> yes. the planning department does not have direct access for actual stamped approved plans for building permits once they're like immediately approved those would be access through dvi or the permit the property owner. so but but like i said i requested those the plans and i did receive those by email but they were there they are the drawings of the plans. they're not the stamped approved version. >> yeah. and and so also during appellants testimony what was raised in my mind was that he was surprised that the the

volume of bedrooms he was surprised that you know the new window and so and and would surface in my mind was as as i heard from testimony of the the the the permit he was was all that in the original is in the original plans or not okay and my question as a result would surface for me which i'm going to ask you now is at a at a point where the permit an original permit has been issued and they're all on ongoing and then there's the addendum is there a point of reconciliation that is reconciling the the the the construction that has been done to the original set of plans to

see that the addendum indeed as an addendum to to actual buildings which coincides with the original plans or is it just an addendum that it where it's assumed that the stuff that was permitted was built and now they're coming back for a deck? it works that way and with scared me when you testified is that we don't have an original set of plans so how can you reconcile if the if if the the permit holder built what they were supposed to do in the first place? and this is an addendum which brings up i'm sure a few other issues. sure. first of all, just for clarity and i can let my colleague maybe i speak more on this but an addendum is technically technically something different than what we're talking about here. this is technically a separate

building permit is and is called a revision permit because it is literally kind of the purpose of it is to revise the scope of another permit that's been issued. so in terms of terminology we typically consider it as a revision permit and not a not an addendum to your point. i mean literally when you get a second permit to revise the scope is going to call out the things that are different and you will have two different permits issued, right? and they represent collectively the permitted scope of work. obviously the things that were revised on the second permit kind of trump that's what you're held to. so if the construction was already in process and you just said oh actually we don't want to do that wall and we get this other permit, then you take down that wall to be consistent with that or vice versa, right? if the revision permit says no, we're going to add some new walls the revision permit, the scopes, the details of how that permit revised the scope of work are going to be what's required combined with the original permit to be the total

permitted scope of work and what that answers your yeah but it just creates more questions for me because what i what i looked at again thanks to the appellant was sliding doors that led to a deck now if the deck is the addendum to a sorry i'm using the word addendum but the revision to the permit includes a deck and what was built in the house in the first place was according to an original set of plans it did not have a deck. >> why don't why are there sliding doors in and were those sliding doors put in according to the first permit when there wasn't a deck even in the process? >> i mean it just kind of goes to i think it's questions

because right i mean the question like why have sliding doors when they weren't part of the original in i mean it seems to me and obviously you can ask the permit holder but before there wasn't a deck so you just needed windows right now there's a deck you wouldn't have access to the deck. so you know you changed you change that the timing of when they were built relative to getting this revision permit i don't i don't know the answer to that. you can ask them if they decided to do that and they started building it and then got the revision permit or if they were ready to go got the revision permit and jumped on it and then it got appealed. i don't know the timeline of when those pictures were were taken so that's a question for the permit holder we don't have any there's not any complaints in our system that i saw for us or a dti relative to starting that work, you know, without permit. so i can't answer that in a detailed way in a complaint isn't going to come unless a neighbor calls us and complains because they've seen a full set of lands and suddenly where there was supposed to be a

solid wall there's or a single window, there's now a sliding door and the result would be you have to be paying really close attention to that as we all know. >> and the result would be you have to get a revision permit for that and that's what so i mean i'm not going to make light of if they did work without permit before they got this reversion revision permit only just to say that if that had been the case this is something that could be permitted and where we are today, you know the permit has been kind of lawfully and appropriately issued for that work. >> yeah. and so it's just going through questions that were making me scratch my head as i heard testimony from one than the other and now a clarification for the benefit of the of the appellant the appellant basically as i'm hearing it and then in in when he has rebuttal he can tell me if i'm wrong or not but is that his is his biggest concern is where

there was not a transparent window that looked out over provided a view of his yard now there is that's invading his privacy most of the time when we hear about decks and i think we had a couple of them last week me and a couple of them the week before it's all about privacy. invasion is into somebodies bedroom where you know they're into more intimate activities that might occur than in a backyard. so the can you give us some guidelines with regard to the privacy issue is is it viewed by the by by is it viewed by the city? the privacy includes viewing into somebodies backyard or is that a privacy issue or is a privacy issue a view into somebody's bedroom where where

there is more intimacy? i would definitely say the focus is privacy issues relative to someone's home and not yards as you can imagine preventing view into neighboring yards is extremely challenging. typically the highest since you're going to be able to have is ten feet. so if you have any two storey building with a rear facing window you're going to be able to see into adjacent yards. i don't think there's there's really a practical way to to prevent that from happening. it's a very common scenario in the city with, you know, adjacent buildings with rear facing windows being able to see and as even if it's flat if you're if you get to get you know if you get any kind of then that makes it even harder to to have that type of prevention of viewing into yards. >> so the privacy provisions we talk about like you said in the residential design guidelines, they don't make a distinction between those two but

definitely the way we have implemented it and understood it and to apply is privacy and people's homes, right? so that was my that was kind of my view is that this is not just this really doesn't pass the privacy smell test the privacy smell test would more more be directed internally into something? >> and from our review perspective, i mean the existing home before any work which then had rear facing windows i mean you could stand in those windows and get the same view that would be there. now of course they're going to be a bit bigger because there's because there's more windows and you have the sliding doors and you have the deck itself. but even that again just within the typical context of the city we would not be would not be considered a privacy issue because it provides the ability to see into someone's yard. >> right. thank you very much. i'll yield to mr. president. you thank you. thank you. mr. teague you're always very good at clarifying what looks

to be confusing and i share commissioner swigs at least earlier confusion as to what's here and i believe the permit holder and appellant seem to be operating over on on two sets of facts. so it'd be great if you could help us and do he's my confusion get us all on the same page on on this issue so on the issue of the first permit and the second permit mr. withers has said he's worried about the sliding door and that small window is the sliding door a an earlier permit problem or is it part of this permit? >> my understanding is that that's part of this permit so because if the prior permit did

not have the deck right and this permit as i read it does talk about at a window in each bedroom. so this proceeding is the right place for him to raise his concerns about the sliding door and the window. i believe so right. and the multiple number of bedrooms is that an earlier permit problem or is that this permit problem that was the prior permit and just to provide more guidance on that, i mentioned that this property's in the rh one zoning district is also in the ocean view large residence study and that actually has controls that limits the number of bedrooms in a single unit or the overall size of a single unit and if you go over either of those thresholds it requires a conditional use authorization from the planning commission. so the original permit that's not before you today but it was

proposing a total of five bedrooms and that is the trigger for the conditional use authorization. so one of those more internal bedrooms was converted to an office study and specifically called out to not be a sleeping room on the plans and so the total number of bedrooms i believe is four but that was established under the prior the prior permit and that does the prior permit with the prior does the neighbor have the right to be heard or to be notified about the prior permit? >> the prior permit did not require any neighborhood notification from the planning department. it was all internal work. there was no kind of exterior expansion of the building so there was no scope there that would have required neighborhood notification. and so even so even though it might require a conditional use authorization, there's still no requirement to notify neighbors if they would have said if they

would have chosen to to stick with five bedrooms then it would have required the conditional use authorization then that would have been a public hearing that would have had public notice for for that hearing. >> okay. so to summarize then the concern about the multiple number of bedrooms which appears to be news to mr. mr. withers that is a two to mixed metaphors is ship that sailed that would have been that would have been had he known about it or that would that would that would not be something that a neighbor necessarily would have the ability to contest as long as it's four or fewer there wouldn't have been required required notice obviously it they would have had requested notice or been aware of it. they could have appealed the permit. they could follow jurisdiction requests if they felt like they should have been notified. but in terms of like what's before you today, that scope of work is not part of this current permit. right? and what's before us today is the complaint about the sliding

door and the window and as you've explained it, commissioner swig those the sliding door in the window do not implicate privacy because we define privacy as privacy as to the home rather than the property the neighboring property. >> right. they represent rear facing windows and doors at a second level and wouldn't constitute a scenario where we interpret the residential design guidelines for that to be a privacy issue. >> thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. commissioner swick no. okay. vice president hepler thank you. >> another kind of layer to the onion you mentioned the issue between the five bedroom and the change to four bedrooms and that was achieved through converting a bedroom on the plans to an office desk study. i think maybe you might be waiting into building code here when i ask this question but can you explain the distinction between a room that is a study

and a room that is a bedroom for the purposes of figuring out whether or not a conditional use authorization is required? sure and definitely copy from dba. i can get into more details because we basically define a bedroom to be like a sleeping room under the housing codes we kind of crib off of dba for that purpose so there's minimum requirements for being a sleeping room and obviously if you don't meet those then you can't use it for that purpose for life safety reasons and in this case you can have a room that could meet those requirements but you can label it very specifically. you can have it be very explicit on the plans that it's not to be used in that way and because we obviously there are other types of rooms and there are dining rooms, there are studies, there are offices and home offices that someone can obviously put a bed in and use and that gets into like the design versus the use issue that is kind of a can be a challenge but again defer to

tbi whereas a sleeping room where a bedroom has very specific code requirements i don't know that other than like basic ceiling height requirements i don't know that a study or an office is going to have the same types of code acquirements. and so since since design is something we have a little bit of control over and uses is a little bit more ephemeral for us. if i were to ask what design changes were made to make it not to a sleeping room that would be a dba i question and not a question to you correct. >> and i'm from when i reviewed i don't know that they made any design changes in terms because i mean i think the design changes they would have to make would be something along the lines of removing a window or you know, basically making it less safe to go inside with it not being used as a sleeping room. >> okay. thank you. thank you. commissioner swick, i don't know where to go here or not. i've been been been been on

this panel too long. i think we had a we had a case a couple of years ago. >> i don't know how many a couple of years ago but i believe it was on geary boulevard in 18th and the discussion was similar to that where it was marked as a library but the appellant was absolutely swear to god we're going to those suckers were going to use it as a bedroom and that became the whole i mean i'm i'm didn't i'm not quoting him but it was the implication and that was the fervor of the conversation. and so maybe i don't know whether gbi wants to address it or not but the whole discussion of of when is that when is it when it's an office, a bedroom bedroom, an office how do you and i think it was the same discussion do you recall that or was that under scott it may have been even under scott's regime. >> we've had a number of cases

like that. >> i don't know if i remember that one specifically but yeah but i but yeah i can i mean because we deal with this right because this comes into play and for code requirements like this where there are triggers right? and also it comes into play because how we define group housing relative to a dwelling unit. exactly. and to your point which i completely understand, there are some times we get plans in front of us to say this is a dwelling unit and there's like four offices and four bedrooms and like five four bathrooms and we say we want to see some changes, right? if we don't need five four bathrooms for four bedrooms and that kind of thing we can have we do have discretion to try to, you know, amend the design to to influence the use. the flipside of that is when we have a situation like this where you have four bedrooms and one designated like office or study, yeah that's not particularly egregious and you know he gets in this

distinction between is an egregious design versus that's going to really encourage use in a way that's not co compliant because the other challenge there is we we have people who you convert dining rooms to bedrooms convert living rooms to bedrooms, convert everything to bedrooms in less safe ways and so that just gets to the point that you can only prevent that type of use too so far like if someone's going to cram a bunch of bedrooms into a building in an unauthorized manner, we can't really prevent that completely. we can try to find examples that are we think are going too far and try to prevent that. typically when someone has like one room like that's something it's not necessarily crazy to have like an extra room at an office or a study etc. and that was the case here like there was a requirement that they go down from 5 to 4 if they wanted to avoid this queue but no additional requirements were were made. but but i can't confirm that there are other situations

where it's more egregious than that. i think more obvious than that and we have required changes to the floor plans in those situations. >> yeah i just wonder supplement the conversation for mr. airport that was chosen for my my question okay thank you for their questions we will now hear from dubai. >> good evening commissioners president of union joyce patel department of building inspection senior building inspector and plan review just to clarify a point when a revision permit is applied for on a previously approved set of plans but over the counter or in house the project sponsor will bring in the originally approved set of plans and then he'll bring in a second set of plans which are the revision plans which are approved and at that point the revision plans

are compared to the original plans and you know the changes we looked at to make sure that they're code compliant. i looked at the plans for the original permit. it was four bedrooms and an office to your point as far as a home office there aren't a lot of triggers and what i mean by that is habitable space in a dwelling unit is required to have a ceiling height of seven foot six so there's no difference there. a habitable room is required to be a minimum of 70ft2 with a room dimension of not less than seven feet in any one direction. so there's no difference there which is why on the approved set of drawings they can call it an office but we require the design professional or the applicant to write a disclaimer on the plans are provided disclaimer on the plans that this room will not be used for sleeping purposes. i think the main difference would be emergency escape and rescue that's required in a bedroom that may not be required in an office space because it's not considered a sleeping room.

>> the original permit was approved to code met all the code requirements, the revision permit, the deck meets the setback requirements. there are no real limits. there are no limitations on the amount of windows on the rear of the building because it's set for backing up from the property line that there there is no maximum they can actually put a glass wall back there for the whole building if that's what they so chose. so as a proof or as submitted the project was compliant and approved as such if you have any questions i'd love to answer them. >> thank you commissioner swig same question before is there a point when there's a revision permit that the gbi has the takes initiatives to reconcile the original the original plans to what has been already constructed constructed term just to make sure that everything was done in a in a

compliant fashion the first time. so as you're going right. >> well, the original permit cannot be finalized or they cannot get a final inspection. yeah. until the work on the revision permit is done as well they go in tandem at that point. yeah because the revision permit references the mother permit. yes. so they live together right. so the issue of for example you know what why would you have doors sliding sliding glass door in the original permit if you if you didn't have a a deck to connect it to it really becomes a moot point because it's going to be called compliant even if if the when the revision permit takes place and when the final inspections done the the doors are going to be according to to to any technique to the drawings on the revision correct. so it doesn't really it really doesn't matter even if they got to have themselves built the

you know build the glass windows before they got the approval for the correct i'm answering my own question but i have to think through these things and with regard to the the the privacy issue that i asked mr. teague is your opinion the same as mr. teague that the privacy is really about looking into somebody's bedroom or intimate area versus looking into the their backyard ? i can have an opinion on that commissioner, but it's it's not in the building code and i'd like to stay in my wheelhouse which is the building code finds perfect answer thank you. >> thank you. we have questions from president trasvina and vice president hepler. >> thank you for walking through the requirements for an office requirements for a bedroom know they don't sound very different except if one if it's five bedrooms requires conditional use of approval and if it's four bedrooms in an office it doesn't and emergency

escape and rescue for the fifth bedroom if it was that right for if if an individual a neighbor is at a party there and they say well i've been in here i see five bedrooms or if for some other reason if an inda neighbor is at a party there

and they say well i've been in here i see five bedrooms or if for some other reasonhem to go? you do say they file a complaint with which they would they would file a complaint with code enforcement. okay. that would be that would be the avenue they use. right. that's what it that's that's the that's what i was looking for. if there is a place for them to go, whether they prevail or not, that's a separate question but they go to code enforcement. >> correct. thank you, vice president eppler and i certainly appreciate the points that my fellow commissioners have made but i am curious that i think we've been talking in generalities with respect to the specific set of plans. do you know what criteria this this fifth room does not meet that prevents it from being labeled on this as a sleeping room? >> i took a cursory look at the set of plans to make sure that it met the code requirements. i cannot tell you if it had emergency escape and rescue or not. it was labeled as an office and that's that's the that's

the bar that i used. >> okay. thank you. thank you. thank you know for their questions. you can be seated. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone on zoom who wants to provide public comment for this item? please raise your hand. i don't see anyone so we're going to move on to rebuttal. so mr. withers, you have three minutes to address the board. one of the issues that was mentioned earlier is that i had a deck in my backyard and i do my deck sets lower than anybody else's and i can't see all the property to the right nor the property to the left or the property in the back assumption that they have a higher house that's looking over in the back and that was only done based off of the fact that that was going to be a sunroom specifically for washer and dryer. other than that i don't see their property but they see

mine and and that's the issue for me because when she had initial only show me the property her language was extremely condescending telling me that this was not a window this is not a new wonder and yet it is and that as a door actually there's not just one door. there's two sliding doors and two windows one on the left, one on the right and they are adjacent to each other. my issue is that it's still my privacy and she doesn't live there and she's not going to live there. >> that's an issue for me and that issue is that i don't know how many people is going to live there but the comment that i received from her it doesn't matter because she's rented she's renting a property and that's all she's concerned about. i live there and i'm trying to live the best i can without invading anybody else's privacy not including mine as well. thank you.

okay. questions. thank you. i don't see any questions. you can be seated, sir. okay. we will now hear from the permit holder mostly you can go ahead. >> you have three minutes are actually an hour and i want to say i'm going to keep this property for a long, long time and probably i will leave it to my son, my daughter, whatever. but what i want to say is everything we do, we build, we permit and i even know that or i know john that to even be able to our permit. so everything i do is come with the permits come a price comprise everything for the building so i do whatever i can that's it. okay thank you. i don't see any questions anything further from planning department is thank you again i

just want to briefly touch on the options complaint options because that was our dba but it should be clear from planning department perspective absolutely someone with all a complaint actually did this study and always came about from a bunch of complaints for for unauthorized group housing ,lots of bedrooms, lots of people living in homes. so that definitely is an option under the planning code if we have controls that prevent the number of bedrooms and someone is using or basically has converted a room in an unauthorized way that would require an additional approval under the planning code that would be an option for neighbors. any member of the public that was concerned they could file a complaint with the with the planning department and we would investigate that. but i just want to be clear on that issue. >> thank you. thank you. >> vice president eppler has a question relating to that question. you know, it's certainly we have the after construction side of this since the planning

department exercised its discretion in these circum stances about what is and what is not a bedroom you know so long as it meets the certain building code requirements when you have a code requirement whether it's a maximum or a minimum for the number of sleeping rooms, do you exercise your discretion a little bit more judiciously because it actually matters as a as not as writings on on a set of plans but as a matter of law at that time i mean do you are you a little bit more critical of a room that's otherwise a a sleeping room but just says office on it on the on the plan and that circumstance? >> sure. and what i was trying to say before and if it wasn't clear i apologize is that we tend to be more critical of those scenarios when they're greater in number. obviously if it's on a borderline applicable acquirement and if there are other factors that play into it . right? so sometimes it's not just the number of bedrooms.

it's like how many four bathrooms do you have sometimes that's combined with dining rooms that are completely walled off and doored and you get a you can see on the floor plan this looks like a very compartmentalized high volume of bathroom situation that does not feel like a unit, right? it feels like a bunch of small individual units and so it's more when we see all those things together or compounding issues that we may require someone to open up the dining room and not have it walled off, not have as many full baths relative to the number of bedrooms, things like that to try to prevent this from happening and people using it in a way that's not authorized in a case like this. i mean obviously people build up to the limits of things kind of all the time. this is not uncommon in this district to have single family homes that are big enough to

have for 4 or 5 bedrooms and one of those rooms is going to be a den or study or an office. and so i would say generally in the scenario we see here, there's an understanding that they're right on that line. but this isn't like an egregious situation where we would do something along the lines of say you have to close off that window or do something physical with that room to to make it less likely to be used as a bedroom. >> thank you chair okay. thank you. okay. thank you. we'll now hear from dubai. anything further? nothing further. >> so commissioners this matter submitted. i want to thank the parties and our department representatives and my colleagues for really exploring in depth the various issues that are here and trying to reconcile two very different viewpoints about the complained

of edition that is part of the permit. >> i believe in my own view and i'll i'll turn this over to my colleagues in a second my own view we don't have a violation. we don't have a sufficient reason to overturn the permit as as the departmental representatives explain the issue as to privacy which is the sole issue for for for for mr. withers the privacy issue goes not as to his own personal viewpoint of what privacy is but a general description including the dividing line between a view of the property and a view of the home. and over the past couple of years as i've we've we have discussed many times the issue of privacy and while it is the person's privacy it is the person's viewpoint of the privacy doesn't always isn't always fully incorporated it is

a general issue of privacy that the city tries to tries to protect. >> but under the current situation both of the the laws or regulations as the way they are applied i believe this permit was was was properly issued. >> commissioner sweig eloquently stated i am i agree i agree with the outcome and i appreciate your your reasoning on it particularly in light of the fact that really the matter that's before us right now is the privacy issue because it's the revision permit and it's the dec that's that's at issue and and the windows there i will point out that perhaps those are the only things that are at issue because there's not a notice requirement for the scope of the interior work that was part of the original permit you know from a legal basis that is the way that it is and we're siding appropriately. you know from a policy standpoint i find it odd when we have special use districts or other requirements that may

come into play with the scope of an interior remodel that have some sort of public issue with it like the number of bedrooms or rooms that could be bedrooms whether it's you have to have a certain number or too many is too many as we have in this circumstance. but that is certainly outside of the scope of what it is that we're here to decide today and on the basis of the code is drafted and you know, i think your analysis of it is correct. i don't see any way that we can uphold this appeal. i appreciate both my colleagues in in amplifying the state of the law and and where we are as to this particular case or controversy as the planning department representing it has noted, the neighbor or someone who does have a continuing continuing ability to bring to the city's attention any violations of the four bedroom

in an office versus five bedroom. and that is something that is also something of of of note as we prepare to resolve this this permit. so i'll i will make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. >> okay. thank you president just being on that motion vice president eppler i mr. swag i so that motion carries 3 to 0 and the appeal is denied and that concludes the hearing there being no further business before the board this meeting stands adjourned

my name is mark, the general manager of condor beach in san francisco. condor was created [indiscernible] when it started in 1964, the club becoming the first adult entertainment, club regal in america, that was something big, that was huge. condor givers you a little of everything. we open in the day on the weekends so we have a live band that play and night time we transform where the entertains come on and we have the gentleman's club vibe along with the sports vibe. we show the ufc and boxing events and major sports and do little things like [indiscernible] comedy nights you can find what we are

doing through our website. condor gives you a little bit of everything that you want when you want to go out and have a good time. being here in north beach and part of san francisco we put a lot of ourselves in the business. the good work we were able to do over the last decade to build it and make it what it is today t. is a honor to say, we are one of few businesses in san francisco that is a legacy business. >> you're watching san francisco live with chris manner. >> today's s f f is - >> hi, i'm chris you're

watching or imagining the city we have ivar satero director of sfo welcome to the show. >> go to the with you. >> thank you nice to see let's talk about how the airport as and the number of depreciations you're serving. >> yeah. it is really exciting we consult strong out the crisis and full swings with in carriers and poetry's and great dedications have a lot more to the mix and we have others we had talked about wonderful depreciations and people are loving that we're at with an hundred and 10 percent the precovid international position without the full recovery so

we'll anticipating china but the recovery is excited to see how busy the temperance are those days. >> had renovation or expansion plans are currently underway? >> great. a lot of exciting programs we suspected some that have the work because of crescent trail he now we're back in full spring or swing and finished the harvey milk terminal one and talk about setting a standard in passengers traveling and it exceeded any exceptions to finishing harvey milk terminal one and now knowledge on another terminal that's one of the last terminals to receive the 70 patch focuses on the passengers expense and west torrential has will kicked off and now taking the next four and a half years to 34re89 34re9 and have a lot of the investment structure and part of on

$11 billion investment over the 5 years to seven years and $8 billion and $3 billion in the extra and excite to implement a new wastewater treatment plants and we'll be able to reuse the water at ivar satero director of sfo and next the question is san francisco san francisco international airport is well common for the opportunity. >> could you debilitate on those a little bit. >> we set aggregate goals we set the zero goal this is the zero net energy greenhouse gas emissions and zero water and we have had that as one of the permit values for over a decade and exciting to see our entering use is down by 4, 3, 2 , 1 percent if 2012 our water use is

detain 20 percent and is greenhouse gas emissions is down thirty percent and that is about the investment we made and the quality of facilities we build and reduces the entering consumption and heating and cooling those things when we make those investments what is that commissioner vietor that benefits the environment when we design and plan the buildings is really exciting and wonderful to see little success we're having. >> i think about the future and skuntd fuel and we building that since 2018 to show the leadership in the advancement of constitutional aviation and 70 will be the airport for the fuel of any airport in the world this year and next year and so that's a huge workforce at 70 but undoubtedly has an impact over the regional xhivengz and just

facts as you, you know, we are the latter jock center in san mateo county we have 40 thousand people at 70 and we contribute about 40 board of appeals to the regional economy about one hundred and fifty thousand job is rely on the successful operations of our airport it is really a tremendous interest rate to our economy and about the operations and construction programs and you'll talk about the investment we've been investing in the facilities for so many years i've been here 3 decades and under construction that whole time almost and the job addition for the contradiction program is meaningful for well paying trades work and intifrmz has on a priority and this year with our interns yesterday over one hundred interims supporting the team we're a perspective of the support we get the the labor

that is available to 70. >> that's great. >> so finally what advancements will be for the passenger experience and operations, you, know, many people for those of you who don't know the history of this is a long alter 70 and in father 1959 we had jets and the disruption that has happened are particularly with uber and lyft wiper the first airport to permit their precautions $50 billion and with the taernlz with the technologies like automatic. >> what an experienced for people going to the check lines and our dependant cure system the bag system the lath technology and the first in the u.s. so have an independent carrier system and 0 now you

hinge with the notification it is really tremendous particle as we develop a new facility but, you know, for us too about our operation and unfor the future there is exciting new development happening we have recently implemented a ground based agree mansion system that is technology improves the arrive rate of airport and allows for which the development of arrivals that benefit community by higher elevations and offsetting over the water we invested in that that noise and quality of life but also, you know, for the delays details delays are a community by the people when cooler weather and traffic comes in after midnight we're investing in our familiarity and investing in the operations we have our airport

integrated operation system underway with technologies to give us much better especially realtime awareness and auto operations and embarcadero to adjust our operations to address congestion, you know, roadside congestion and checkpoint congestions gives us much better awareness and other things we can talk about that are existing wall but taxis an noopgs 234506gs we or working with the industry on this that might look in the 70 and preparing for the future of air taxis and one of our big initiative to engage the broader region in the developments we have to have policies that address the air taxis innovation we are conducting with berkley transportation center and engaging the industry and

engaging decision makers and the region in helping to develop policies will give us a framework for addressing the air taxis that's a step for the next several years. thank you. ivar satero director of sfo for sharing the information for san francisco international airport we appreciate the time you've given us and thank you. >> we'll be back with another one i'm chris thank you for you can. okay. welcome to the january 8th, 2025 treasure island development authority board meeting. item number