and then, everything will be okay. president trasvina. good evening and welcome to the february 12 meeting of the board of appeals. president tras vin at presiding officer joined by jr eppler, rick swig and jose lopez also

jan hoover who will provide with legal advice and deputy city attorney will be observing. i'm julie lamar the executive director. we'll be joined by the city departments that will be present before the board this evening. corey teague is the za reporting planning. and joseph is a senior building inspector with the department of building inspection. the board requests you turn off owl phones and electronics so they will not disturb. no eating or drinking in the room. the resumes of presentation, appellates, permit holders are begin 7 minutes to front and throw for rebuttal. people affiliated include in the periods. members not affiliated have throw minutes with no rebuttal.

our legal assistant will warn you 30 seconds before your time is up. only 3 votes are required. if you have questions about a rehearing the board rules or schedules e mail board staff. participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv is streaming live and receive comment for each item today. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch on tee go to channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday's 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream on the home page of the website sfgov.org. public comment can be provided in person, zoom, you can provide

public comment by phone. again sfgovtv is streaming instructions across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the stream or broadcast to which block your number dial star 67 then the number. listen to the comment and dial star 9 equal to raising hands so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in the hearing room when it was t is your turn. you will have throw minutes and our legal assistance will provide you a 30 second warning. note that there is a delay with the live proceeding and that is on tv and the internet. it is important that people reduce or turn off volume on tv's or computers otherwise well is interference. if the participates or attendees need an accommodation or

assistance you can question in the chat function. or e mail the board of appeals. chat nungz cannot be used for public comment or opinion. note that we'll take public comment first for those who are present in the hearing room. now, we will swear in or affirm those who intend to testify. any member may speak without an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give it weight, raise your right hand and say, i do. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are a participate and not speaking put your zoom on mute. item 1 is general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak in the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. is there a member who wishes to

speak on an item not on the agenda? i don't see anyoneful i don't see anyone on zoom. we'll move on to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> thank you. ms. lamar welcome torn tonight's proceedings. i have a couple comments to begin our meeting. that isment to recount that last week i ran into former mayor agnosand he is about 81 and looks like if hollywood was looking for a mayor to be called he would be it. the reason i mention him because he approached me and said, the board of appeals, that was my i favorite board. when i was mayor. the reasons why he expressed better than i do what i try to convey. it is the people's board.

for people to come before to city hall, have a problem with a permit machine who got a permit and object or they were not able to get a permit. they were able to come to city hall. express views without a high priced lawyer. although we don't mind. we do want to have this as an opportunity. for people to express views about a decision made by the department. wait a momented the departments to convey to the public and us. what the reasons were for the decision. and it is that spirit we have as try to give people an opportunity. average san franciscans opportunity to express views. it is without spirit and i know my colleagues i learned a lot from my colleagues. also express as to you be able to make this a possibility so

people get answers and they get a decision and then to move forward. i also. to mention that we are having very, very ably assist in the this charge that we take seriously. by the office of city attorney. and tonight may be the final meeting for our current deputy city attorney who is called upon to assist another commission that meets the same time. we'll no longer have her excellent legal services to guide us throughout various matters we have from various departments. i want to thank you for not just your legal expertise. it seems like the city attorney's office has an endless array of star legal performers. you are one. jen thank you for your advice

and being able to answer all of our questions on the spot or with a bit of preparation we'll miss you and know you have other important city legal services to provide and wish you well in your next [inaudible] for the city. commissioner swig. >> jen, thanks for your service. enjoyed having and you always come in the nic of time to rescue us. when we have those [inaudible] territory. i appreciate and you wish you the best with your new commission. thank you. i want to echo that and emphasize you know that i think we look to our support from the city attorney's office.

with you know eagerness for that advice it is [inaudible] and that speaks to the high quality of service the office provides. but i had the good fortune of able to sit next to jen during her time with us and want to say that i will miss you here at the meetings. i want to echo what the others said and point out that i have been on here for a couple of years now and we had on our third city attorney. look upon ourselves had we can keep one. stop running them off. >> okay. thank you. any public comment on this item? >> i don't see any. move on to item number 3. the adoption of minutes. buffer for discussion are the minutes of february 5, 25 meeting.

>> move to adopt the minutes >> is there public upon comment on the motion to adopt minutes. >> so, on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> aye >> president trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner swig. >> aye >> the minutes are adopted. we are moving on to item 4. . joana yee versus dbi planning approval. subject property 40 sen-35th avenue. appealing the issuance to linda quash of alteration permit it is a notice of violation number. and to also legalize the roof overnight existing light well. and we will hear from the appellate first. mr. yee, welcome you have 7 minutes. >> thank you.

i like to thank the commissioners and the board members for this opportunity to look into this matter. my neighbor had put a roof cover over the stair well. and over their building and in such created a chattel into my property. and certain rooms are darker than others as indicated on the -- specifically i'm appealing this permit because i would like them to consider putting a clear cover instead of opaque i'm not asking them to remove the cover, understandable low i would want that protection over the stairs in that area as well. i want a clear structure over it so the light can come through and they get their cover. it is a win/win. if i we can achieve that. >> couple of thing system that in their appeal, they came up

with drawings on the my building, and the area it is not to scale and they indicate the service board being really large it is small. it is in the it is a room, and they indicated that there is a furnace and hot water heater. i have a couple minutes am photos that shoes the water heat and furnace on the whole floor that is usable room and that's when we use it for to cover shadow in that room and the kitchen area. kitchen area has a dining nook and that window and that other smaller room are affected. by that cover. so -- so -- this is the service part here and this distance here

to here is actually -- about 22 feet. and then the room here 5. pointed to the if you could speak in the microphone. >> a small >> this is all scale and specifically their cover the area. [inaudible] [cannot hear speaker].

it is a bit darker that is one adjacent to it. that's the small are room. this is where the water heat and furnace is down snares that room we don't have the water heater or furnace. you can see looking from that room looking up and that's where the light is block friday that roof. and again darker -- and again is a room. nothing in there. like a water heater. so this is their back stairs and on top is the cover. and again, the rooms are darker and ideally if we can get a -- go back here. yea. it is darker. and make it -- so this , is an example of a clear cover. that can be used in place of it.

and -- something like this -- that's clear. and if possible if they could switch on that and i think i can get my light and they can get the cover. so. in any case thank you for your consideration. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> we have a question from president trasvina for you. >> thank you, mr. yee for your presentation. on the requested on the covering. have you had occasion to talk directly to mr. kwon about your request? my partner attempted do so but they are not receptive to conversing with us. >> they didn't. >> did your partner and ms. kwon have a conversation and did in the reach agreement. >> they walked away and would not have a conversation with us.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you can be seated. thanks. we'll hear from the permit holder ms. kwon or samuel kwon representing you? welcome. you have sen minutes. >> mr. president and members of the board. i'm sam kwon i'm architect and i represent the kwon property owner. i have commons which i will -- hopefully be able to show on this.

this is the photograph of the neighbor's property and the white building, which is the linda kwon's property. the roof in question is -- covering over an existing light well, which is indicated here. and -- it has been done a time ago. and -- notice from the not a -- permitted. we have applied for permit and obtained permit approvals to legalize this structure. and -- then the inspector came out and signed off on the project. we received this appeal

regarding the structure. what i indicated here is -- area that is the neighbor is -- concerned this the new structure has credited shadow that covered their building. and some photographs indicating what the structure is, which is here. and the walk way between the two buildings is part of the neighbor's property. and it is passage way for his apartment building. the structure itself is fair low open. and we have arn lived using -- shadow study.

the building will look like with our or without this roof structure. at different times of the year. during the equinox and the solstice time period. here in for example, this shows what it looks like on march 20, this is an illustration of the structure without the officer structure. and this shows what the addition of the roof structure. so you can see the impact of the shadow is only portion of the roof. of the top floor, actually. and i indicated the different

times, also in the early morning and the late afternoon. can you wareroom out a bit so we can see it better. sorry. this shoes the late afternoon. this is a demonstration 9 o'clock in the morning. summer solstice. there is very little shadow created. this shoes shows this in late afternoon. no shadow on his building. this illustrates the condition 9 o'clock in the autumn equinox.

with limited shadow on his building. and this is 4 p.m. in same day. in the autumn equinox. winter time, this is winter solstice. at 9 o'clock in the morning. this is in evening the whole build nothing shadow because of late evening. and neighbor also complained that the alley way is has moss and things growing but that is actually you know responsibility he take care of his property

himself and not the neighbor's impact on his property. so, i urge the board to support us and reject his appeal. >> president trasvina has a question. >> thank you for your presentation. on the shadow studies, can you tell us theifications of person >> that is me. >> i have a computer program that can generate that. i drew the 3d model and created the shad sxoes input the time and the generates the illustration. >> thank you. >> on the -- on the request the change in the roof, did you hear the >> yea.

we heard that from him. he wrote it in his brief but we were legalizing an existing structure. further, that would be against fire code for using flammable materials. >> can verify that with the building inspector. >> well, what i want to know, so the first time you heard about it is in the brief. >> yes. >> and your reaction is -- you don't want to do it. >> no because we our permit was to legalize something that was there already. >> i realize that you are neighbors. you live next to each other. i want to make clear that now you heard it, you are rejecting the idea. >> i don't want to consider that option.

>> do you know how much it would cost? >> no but it is anything will do its going to cost right now we already have something that is approved. >> okay. if mr. yee paid for it would you change your position. no. would the change in the roof covering have impact on you other -- your construction? the roof itself is protecting the stairway and the light well. and water a accumulating in the light well. in the, lightlimp the property is lower than the neighbor's property. so it has a deep well in the where the stair goes down. >> my question is, the roof

covering that mr. yo is asking for, how would that affect your property compared to the one you have? >> the plastic structure is not permitted to be constructed in this situation. >> building code. >> so, other than leaving aside i hear you that your view is and we will find out from the city whether it is in compliance or not. but the impact on your property is what? the impact -- of the changing the roof covering that he is requested, what is the impact to your property. cost. other nan cost and compliance,

there is nothing else. cost special inconvenience >> thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president eppler has a question. >> thank you for your testimony. i have a question you said that the permit was to legalize an existing structure that was in place do you know how long that structure had been in place prior to your legalization of it? >> more than 12 years. >> do you know how it came to be present there in the first place in without permit. >> i am not aware. i don't know. can you repeat. >> mrs. kwon do you want to approach and address the board? i'm a regular person i didn't know a permit required when i

was 2012 i was doing the siding. and i did not know that i include that portion. >> and mr. that's the first time i met mr. yee that he came over and said i trespassed. >> i don't want to get in that history. i think so i'm to clarify, it has been there since 2012 and added when you were redoing the siding you didn't know you needed a permit. >> we legalized it. >> thank you. >> fine. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]. you can be seated. now hear from the planning department. good upon afternoon. president and commissioners corey teague za for planning.

the permit before you on appeal is for a property at 40 sen, 35th. an existing build with tw units and rh2 zone. the building is throw stories in the front and 4 at the rear. you have a split at that fourth level. the building permit in question fairly minor scope of work you are aware of. from a planning code perspective it was reviewed over the counter on december 11 of last year. it is a code complying scope of work. it did not trig are neighborhood notification for this permit and was consistent with the residential design guidelines on that front. you have seen, the adjacent building is a 3 story build with a 5 foot set become for the full length. there is not an issue where you have matching light wells that have to be preserved under the residential design guide lines from a planning perspective this

is a minor and straightforward permit and approved appropriate low under the planning code and so -- i would leave that to the board to take what action you think is necessary i'm available to answer questions you may have >> thank you, commissioner swig. you touched on the things i'm concerned with. so i never sitting on here i heard issues related when light wells were side by side. but with this separation between to buildings, that is never been an issue you have two buildings side by side. and are there restrictions related to i don't, light and air. privacy. i don't see the point of the whole matter quite frankly. and i want to be compliant and go according to law.

but you said there is simple. somebody put an officer on a hatch. what am i missing here that we should be concerned with? >> again from planning code perspective, we talk about the two tiers the code and and design guide lines. from a code perspective it is code compliant in the buildable area and height. and from a residential design guideline, you are correct when we have property line buildings that have matching light wells. obviously the purpose of the light list is to let light in. so, we have situations where neighbors have over lapping light wells or one light well on one property is big and are they want to partially fill it inform the design guidelines say if you have matching light list one side should not be completely

fill anded allow hem to be a certain extent. we have guidelines. that does in the apply to where the building is setback by 3 or more feet that is not a light well scenario that building is setback in this case, 5 feet that the protection of light that has been raised by the appellate is not something in the scene air i don't that is protected under the design guidelines. >> thank you. >> president trasvina. >> do you have a view as to the issue of whether the requested covering that mr. yee suggested is compliant not compliant? >> from our perspective the material that he used outside of anything related the fire code is anesthetic issue. given the location of this and

the real lack of visibility from the street, i don't think the planning department would hav an opinion about the material used >> thank you. >> you can be seated >> we will hear from dbi. good evening president trs vina and vice president eppler. i'm joe with the department of building inspection. i have done research on this property. and there has always been a roof covering as far as if you go to the planning website, you see photographs back to 2002 there was an officer covering over the stair well as far as 2002 on our about the year 2012, i will take half a step back. up to 2012, there was a 3 foot set become to the edge of the roof. that was covering the stair

well. on or about 2012 it was extended to the property line. my recommendation to the commissioner system the appeal be upheld the reasons being is the construction to property line is not rated construction which is required by the code. so the construction is in the protected and not fire protected. the permit holder can get this rekt foiled by submitting a revision to the permit already issued. and either take the edge of the roof back throw feet for fire separation or rate the construction. it meets the rating that is the building department's position on this roof covering. it does not affect light and ventilation. kitchens are not required there is a bedroom but they have window in the back provide light

and ventilation that is not an issue with this permit it is strict locality fire separation in building too property line. >> thank you. commissioner swig. conflict between planning and building. planning says it is perfect. and building says not for safety reasons which is an important reason not dismissing it. why right the planning code and building are two different codes my opinion with the permit over the counter i don't know how busy the day was or who looked at it but it is my opinion the permit was approve in the error and issue in the error and you know there is time we can still rectify the situation with the revision. but it the structure or alteration completed is not code compliant >> this testimony which you are

inviting is if we were to sustain the situation is because it is now public record you don't agree for safety reasons which is that is you got me. absolutely. what happened we found that the we denied at this time appellate would file notice of violation and complain that there was a life, fair safety issue and this would happen anyway. right >> it would happen anyway and i can't in good conscious say it meets code requirements because it doesn't. >> okay. good direction for the commission that's why we're here to find out how the law works and what we need to get to be compliant. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioner lopez.

>> thank you. thank you for your report. in a situation where the permit holder were to start over. what can you tell us about the building materials question and whether manage that is trans lucent would satisfy code. >> you -- i don't believe you would be able to find something translucent unless it was may be glass. which is noncombustible. i think it would be prohibitly expensive in order to alter the roof structure in that way. i think it would be more cost effective to either again, take it back three feet from property line or provide you know fire rating for the alteration that was done.

>> thank you. thank you. no further questions you can be seated. >> is there public comment. anyone in the room? anybody on zoom? raise your hand. i don't see any we will move on to rebuttal. hear from mr. yee you have three minutes to address the board. thank you. so, i'm not sure about the shadow studies and how they came to be. whether or not it was specific to the exact location of the building. i do know the units were that covers there it is just a lot dimmer in the dining nook and in the other room. and it is only that. some of pictures where he showed shadows, the where that those windows where that cover does not affect it, it is brighter

that's the bottom line. okay. >> thank you. i don't see questions. >> we will hear from the permit holder mr. kwon you have 3 minutes. >> members, i think that the shadow issue is not that -- what we have shown in our illustration shows that shadow impact to his building does not really affect too much because the existing building is already too -- 3 stories high in the front and 4 in the back. and the additional roof structure does not cause that much more shadow on his lower floor. his lower floor windows, mostly

are the stairway in the middle and 2 rooms which are in the building records. they have the -- service rooms for laundry and mechanical system. appellate's photograph showing he moved his water heat and things, that does not show in the original approved permit. which i illustrated the drawings using that record. but those rooms are not -- the windows are not that big and most of the time is covered with window covering. so, i don't believe that is -- justification for claiming he is losing a lot of light.

>> okay. thank you >> president trasvina question? or comment. >> i'm i want to giveut opportunity to responded to the d. building inspection. they told us that the permit was improperly issued. do you have any. >> i am upset they approved something that -- we follow the guidelines and went through all the different departments and got it approved and had the building inspector come out to the job site and signed off on this thing. so -- basically you are asking us to start all over. with a -- new permit. >> we are asking to you if you had the opportunity to either rebut the dbi or agree with it or say it is new.

well, express frustration you did everything you thought you were supposed to and got a green light. >> i want to on the substance of mr. [inaudible] comments do you have response? >> i mean the two options to are both possible. it will -- you know add additional costs. to retrofit whatever that is there to comply with. the two alternatives he presented. so, i mean, i will have to discuss the actual details that they will accept -- and resubmit if that is the way the board directs us. >> and as for mr. teague's comments on the nature of the

covering? did you hear that -- from their perspective either is. >> yes but i -- i understand that, plastic will not be possible as. yea. to have.

we'll hear from dbi. nothing further this matter is submitted. thank you all for your presentations. and -- i'm surprised how the course of the conversations went and the presentations went. this is why we have the written submissions and the oral testimony. and the expertise of the city and of the parties. i will turn to commissioner swig for a motion as to how we address the objection from the city the appropriateness of granting of permit >> i -- i thought i knew it all when i agreed with core and he to be finds i don't know anything. i should remind myself when reminded by dbi we have two sets

of rules on the same item. but you know safety and security is number one. it overrules everything. i think it is clear that we have to find for the appellate and give proper direction and suggest to the permit holder that -- she go back and get a revision from it. and dot job as they did by dbi. that's where it is at >> you can revoke the permit and start the process over or modify the permit to make it code compliant. we would need direction as to how and an opinion from dbi whether the best easier to start afresh? i think the latter.

commissioners. personally i think the easiest curse will be to reinstate the existing permit with the condition that they get a revision permit. the cost revision permit is i dollar. it is in the a huge burden. >> i don't know you are familiar with special conscience that is revising the permit before the board. that's what we would do. we can't reinstate it and a revision we would revise it and issuing a special condition's permit. revision permits are appealable. >> then and there the latter. >> how would you recommend that we modify this permit to make it code compliant. >> again, the choice would be with the permit holder. i can't tell them they can fire rate the existing condition this there is. or cut it back 3 feet to maintain a fire situation

distance. what one is more expensive than the other. it is their choice how they do it to make it code compliant. iot direction is -- that my opinion is we go in the direction of special condition permit and leave it up to the direction of the dbi. we with give alternatives. exactly. provide those and i don't think it is mess to get in the specifics tonight as we leave it. i think the board has to make a decision. and not defer to dbi, otherwise you are kicking it become to them and can't remanual. options are we could the board could grant the appeal and the permit would be rep sindzd and start over. or if the permit needs to be

resunrised and there a press we need to know from the holder what direction they want to take. it would be a continuance where the permit holder could resubmit a permit with conditions. and then the board could do it in that manner. i think >> i think we with modify it and give alternatives say. grant the appeal issue the permit on the continue it be reviseed require that the permit holder get the roof code compliant through making fire rated or cutting it back. >> that's where i was going. julie is that and you just of course, gave me the great words as you always do. how would that work with dbi? process. when a permit is issued dbi prefers to see a scope of work.

when member commits plans generally, or submits for a permit the scope of work is not we will do this or this. and that's i think would be i think that if they got direction from the board of commissioners to require code compliance with table sen where are 5.8 of the code either require one hour rating or fire separation distance, that is the way to go you have to identify the directions. >> you are saying that would be the choice. >> i think that is the to put the tail on your suggestion. jewel se -- take that advice.

you want to read this back with this tail on it in >> grant the appeal issue the permit condition it be resunriseed require that the plans were plans submitted >> yes. >> reviseed be compliant with california building code section 75.8 on the basis of the roof is currently not code compliant. >> exactly. >> that would be the scope of work and on the permit application and on the plans. >> okay. >> i happening this covers it. >> thank you. >> commissioner eppler. >> i am i think we are work out the technicies of the motion and know what direction we want to head in dp & it is the right being direction. commissioner lopez. i guess my question is between

requiring the revision or just doing a flat granting of the appeal is i'm sympathetic to the permit holder. learning about this this evening. i would sthnd machine in their position would want a bit of time to look at the question and the options close low. so, i would be curious is there like a deadline that would need to be met with respect to a permit revision we should be mindful of between the granting the appeal and revision this time line question being be central. >> in tefrms of a time 39 is up to dbi the permit was secured to correct notice of violation is

that right? so. if someone gets a permit how soon you require them to act on it. in terms of addressing an nov? if we put the condition on how much time would they have to come in? >> it is usually written on the nov where hay have a time line to get a permit and merthe building code i believe they have the building code provides a time line of 360 days. once the permit is issued. >> in this case if you wanted to use the same time frame or commissioners wanted to change the time dbi would give them a year to complete. i believe the time line in the code is 360 days >> to ask the question. if we revoke it the violation will be in place and they would be subject to the nov still.

>> correct. >> is there any financial penalties to that nov? i have not read the nov and i can't give you a good answer. >> thank you. >> commissioners you could short en the time line this has been going on if that officer is not safe sooner might be better but -- i will defer to you. >> i'd like to ask the permit holder whether the permit holder has a preference between the options that are presented here. we would like an opportunity to cost out the two alternative it is that require time and all i would like to have a conversation with the dbi as to the proposed construction to make sure we are -- whatever we

represent to them is -- to their satisfaction. so, you know i would ask for 6 months have enough time to get everything. sounds like on the it would achieve that goal. and also the more prescriptive approval of the appeal with special conscience would enable him as well. >> we have to revise the plans to -- right. either circumstance if we revoke or approve with conditions, you would have 360 days. if in fairness to him if we revoke it he will have to pay filing fees again. he will have to pay for special

conscience permit there are fees. i don't know what the big difference is. okay. we had a special condition per mitt i learned myself today dbi charged 680 dlrdz the privacy screen on the deck there are costs associated with special conscience permit. >> i'm guessing a lot of costs no matter what. sounds like you prefer the more cost effective way but i'm not hearing a preference for revocation or -- the special conscience. >> ask how much did you pay to get this permit? >> i don't remember.

1700. so. permit revoked he valid to reapply and pay the fees. we could also continue this item to a couple weeks let them think about -- what route they want to go and talk to dbi and tailor the motion. i think given the surprise of the testimony here, i think the best way for the permit holdtory proceed or chose is to have a continuance. so they can assess whatever factors they want to assess. >> that's reasonable. >> yea. move to continue the matter. for the purposes of the permit hold and the appellates the appeal and the relevant agencies

to >> commissioner wig? did you have your name is up? >> i would agree with commissioner trasvina. you know we have to put ourselves in the position of the permit holder he was assured this was okay. and inspector say it is okay. and then he come in front of us and go through a learning curve here. i think it is appropriate and fair that we continue this. at your suggestion so that everybody can get duck in line. dbi has not read the nov. he is unarmed and prepared but -- the permit holder assured that everything was fine, and

they said everything was find, finds himself disarmed. and taken out and told it is all wrong. i think it is very fair for us to continue this. let everybody go back to neutral corners and develop a strategy that heels the wounds. >> so, i would take away my motion and move for a continuance. on this item. with direction the permit hold exert dbi -- reaches a solution of and gives the commission a direction to make a motion of determination. >> okay. and how long did you want to continue it for. through february 26. two weeks? i will look at dbi and the hahns of bureaucracy.

because that is something in place for 12 years. you know it is not a time sensitive issue. it is how long it would take to do the research and reach -- you know. i'm available. in the office if a design professional that represents the permit holder. would like to reach out to me. i can make time available to discuss the upon different options. and come to a -- design that works. i mean that can be done you know in -- 22-3 weeks.

are you available in 4 weeks. i make my time available. march 19th. are you available on march 19th. i will make it. i have a question. to make it fire rated.

setting it back is an option to my understanding? or. i think that will be better addressed by the experts. that would solve everyone's problem, too, right? i'm thinking. >> thank you. we are this is still your appeal. so -- you have a voice in the continued matter. trying to find a solution what works for everyone. irrelevant. for them for me. >> i would encourage the parties to be in communication with each other since you are next door neighbors. continue to the 19th, julie? >> thank you. your motion on the take. >> yes. >> ready. we motion to continue to march 19th. >> from commissioner wig to continue to march 19 so the permit hold and dbi can worka a solution code compliant solution for the roof and make sure you

communicate with the appellate what options are being discussod that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president trasvina >> aye >> vice president eppler. >> that carries and we will seeow march 19th. thank you. >> we are moving on to item 5. greg d harburg e verse the za. 1708 broderick street appealing the issuance to ryan shore of a variance decision to construct a second level deck at the rear a new roof deck and stairs to existing single family building the rear second level deck and stair will encroach in the year yard and a yeariard variance is required. za granted a rear yard variance.

we will hear from the appellates first. proper d you have sen minutes. >> i want to start introducing

niez i'm greg. and this is my wife death bethany. we have been 13 years we are a family of 5 have throw kids 5 issue sen and 10. and like you mentioned i'm here to represent the other 2 owners in the building. i'd like to start off with run you through a quick agenda and slide goingllow the existing photos. submitted drawings for the vicious and review the potential solutions based on the design. so if we start with the existing photos. start off by saying this is the our living room. weer second floor. this is the main garringing area for the family and kids and out lined here as you see the red line identifies where the approval is to lower the

existing building for an officer top roughly about throw foot 6 you see that the visual privacy issue it will create and even some sound occurrence what is happening on the roof. and -- again, walk you through visuals. we are about 5 foot 8 from the property line. his line and ours. when this roof gets lower you will see the line of sight issues that credit to anything happening on the roof. and -- more photos of taking a step back. things i like to point out is with the wherevero lot lines. the construction of lowering the roof is going to be impactful for us and the surrounding colonelo owners that i understand are here present today and have cent in

occurrence via e mail. i want to get visual when this is lowered that all the sudden it opens up privacy issues. this is further back. we had a hearing in october. and we landod a solution that provided a privacy screen. to allow light and or privacy for roof top. and what you will see here that variance is allowing the officer existing officer to go 2 foot 6 higher. than the existing officer line. which i think is okay for the privacy screen. what i find interesting on the variance that is granted it is -- a hardship on having a backyard and to reach the roof top unit.

what i want to point out here is this is the owner's backyard. which is sending the wrong message when you have a hot tub, fire pit, sport's tv. sauna and out door shower. already in a nice backyardure asking for a variance to roach your roof top to have a large are amenity. we are concerned that what are restrictions on how much of this to the officer top is well a fire pit there. the sauna? the hot tub these are concerns for privacy and for noise as well. this is a photo of the third floor tenability. her bedroom and changing room. we understand we live in close quarter in san francisco. yes we have curtains. these photos identify the breech

of sound that will travel. and this is an interesting lot where you do have a single family home between 3 condos. the sound will echo up to all throw. we already hear our neighbor when is they are in backyards. this is visuals on the 30 floor. windows are waist high. you will see above and the privacy screen that is being proposed. more visuals i want to point out wherevero lot line. you will lower that officer impacting the condo units. we would like direction from the plan and building department how that is addressed. so i like to get into the drawings that were submitted for zoning and planning review.

we met at a hearing here back in october. to review this. we got a privacy screen. met with the concern owner to go over what that design would be. the three ownerings that appealed it we were not happy with the line of site issues that were created. and the light that was. it was a solid 4 foot high planter with in slats. i will get in this in a minute. so during we ended that conversation with, we are open to work through this. and christmas came and got a letter that the variance was approved that was a prize to the owners. and we did tell the owner that we thought we had another meeting to work through the privacy and site lines. that part was a prize. i did in the know there was an

if it was going to be automatic approval. without having another ordinance review. so let me get into some of the things. you can't rely on the plans. why time to be a privacy screen.

thiz are the topic we need to [inaudible]. president trasvina? >> thank you for your presentation i read the public testimony from your niches. if you being tell when you say is it that you are asking to be done? >> we are challenging yet variance on a roof top is approved. you -- can have a variance and the deck off the back. no officer top if approved then solve through sound and privacy. issues. it is not. do you want done on sound and privacy? sound and privacy issues.

would be opaque. and you need to address sound. opaque what? glass. are there studyos this property? there has in the been studyos sound or privacy. so -- other than say you gomented to address do you have specific requests in mind? say that again? requests on what. >> do you have on the st. john's issue? are you able to say tonight what you want done? >> i don't. its my -- not my profession to

understand how sound travels. this is news to us to have an officer top on a house. >> thank you. >> thank you i don't see further questions. so. we will new hear from the [inaudible]. >> absolutely. i will read a brief statement can turn it over >> we willet you get set up and speak in the mic that will be helpful. thank you. >> ready. thank you to everyone for your time and consideration. i'm ryan short the homeowner. i lived there since may of 2021.

first home i ownd and plan to stay for a long time and hope starting a family with my partner. we seek to create more out door space to enjoy our home the house and the small are lot is 20 by 60 foot. it is presented in practical challenges begin the dense block had we are in between. a portion of the back trushth sit in the your required by zoning for a setback in relation to 208 bush street. this means work that will touch that require a variance dollareding the current project. throughout the process i try to include feedback from neighbors and entered parties. the official portion geoff beghan john and progressed through the variance hearing and post variance meeting with neighbors on november 19. plans were revised that cost to myself. at this point we collected all feedback on issues of privacy

and access to sun. and asked the city for a final solution. those were the plaintiff's exhibit we mittd and result in the a decision announceod december 20. more than a month after that meeting. and our hope is to crow more usable out door space. i am turnover to our architect. >> good evening. thank you for your time. okay. great. thank you. as riknow mentioned it 20 by 60 feet. a portion of the existing structure sits within the required 30% rear yard temperature is less than 8 feet that sits within there. our proposed project is we are seeking the approval of a

variance for the second level deck within the required setback and a portion of the roof top deck this is also within that setback. if we were not building within this rear yard setback. everything cells in compliance with zoning code and this would be an administrative reviewed project. we have a solid guard rithat guess around the perimeter of the portion of the officer deck. and the portion of the officer deck is set become on both sides of 5 feet. there is a generous front set become in the your of the roof deck is no more than a third of the total area of the roof.

there had been several revisions to plans. the first project we proposed had know open guard ri. that was revised to be solid. wing with planning department than i recommended up from a standard height of 3 foot 6 to 4 feet. for the privacy to the bush street neighbors. in addition to that the privacy screen was proposed additional means of creating privacy for neighbors the screen is a steal slat that is angle in the a way to allow light to pass through. while providing privacy. so the views show from the third level had that screen would look like and there would look like from mr. d harburg e's unit. and another revision made was on

the second level deck we proposed that to go to the property line. that was pulled back throw feet to further -- block site lines to the neighbors. and as well as the same slat screen of 6 feet was proposed. throughout this process. after our first neighborhood meeting we heard the issues of concerns. and so we showed the diagram how pulling down the paira pit it was -- adding to the quality of let that being be achieved for the neighbors. and -- then look at both roar elevation and plan looking at the site lines how the screen and plant are box would block sight line and pulling back the deck on the second level would further block lines.

there was a light study done of the existing structure as well as our proposal and there are no major direct light concerns because all of the 3 story theirs are to the south of our two story project. and so for the most part the throw buildings put our project in shade. >> that concludes the design of the project. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions at this time. you have the minute and a half. do you want to? the structure did have a back deck and removed by the previous owners and there was a previous variance as well that was similar with the scope that was approved as well.

so in designing the solution was also taking previous measures in account. >> okay. thank you. i don't see questions, you can be seated we will hear from the za. thank you. good evening. president trasvina and commissioners corey teague zshg afor the planning department of the appeal is i variance i granted the past year for the property 1708 broderick. and -- it is an rm1 zoning. it in not a historic resource but constructed prior to 1900 the variance was june of last year and the same month they had a preapplication meeting they

invited the neighbors and registered neighborhood groups in the area. and this was held in june. the hearing for this case was in october 23rd of left year. and during that time the neighbors did raise the occurrence you heard tonight which is privacy and noise related. i think there is an understanding of the unique nature of the site. there were issues raised about site lines, privacy and noise. we had a conversation at the hearing with the sponsor and the neighbor and it is sponsor expressed willingness to w with neighbor and look at adding privacy screens and setting the deck back further to try to address the issues. so that is taken under advisement. the applicant did provide plans

that -- ensured 5 foot setback of the roof deck had the 6 foot tall privacy screen to address the sight line issues with the neighbors. and also a 6 foot privacy screen on the lower deck in that same direction. all the near neighbors on bush street have at the roar providing 6 foot screens there. and in my consideration for the variance one, looking at required another require finaling the first are there extraordinary circumstances. complete low surrounded by large are buildings. the lot is small. shallow and it is 20 feet wide. so, you have a situation where things are compressed there. it was referenced by the

applicant that the roof deck itself does not trig are a variance. what triggers it are the elements that the elements that fall in the rear yards in this case the actual second floor deck and the stair up to the roof deck. and then with the privacy screen that portion in the roariard that requires the variance. none of that was proposed inattorney stair was provided to the officer deck that happened be provided and builted out. within the required rear yard without a variants. just to clarify what elements are triggering the variance here. so. we talked about this. but obviously san francisco is tight, dense city. we are trying to balance issues and priors and rights for prospect owners and whether they

ever responses or neighbors in this case, felt like there was a strong rational for what is a modest principle on this property. where the only issues this were raised were privacy issues and felt that the 6 foot privacy screens at the roof deck and lower second floor deck at the rear, were adequate to address issue and prosecute voiding the better quality of open space for the property. and that was an appropriate balance to strike. i'm not going to read the findings from the letter have you this. i also two other things i felt that the sponsor provided a full set of plans they did not. i have a set of the near final plans if we need to look they did show what is proposed with the roof deck and the screening.

and then last baptist information, i did mention that they held a preapplication meeting last john. there was mailed notice as required for the variance hearing. however we did find out this week that there was an oversight on the applicant's part and 11 by 17 poster was to be posted on the front of the home for the variance hearing was not posted. prior to the variance hearing. just full acknowledgment that was identified this week. having said that we know through the variance process and this process here, that neighbors are awear of the project. there were concern raised by the appellate that niches did not raft mailed notice. we did double check and the order for the notification to

make sure the required owners and residents within the notice raiseius were notified. the mailed notice did go out to everyone within the vicinity required. i wanted put this out well and the end, felt like the modifications made to the project were adequate to address privacy issues and the project met all findings for a variance i'm available for questions you may have. >> thank you. commissioner swig? >> two parts. one involves the city attorney and mr. teague. city attorney, could you advise the board and the public i like to do this in variance hearings. what are parameters here what is the board doing here? in dealing with the appeal on a variance?

and -- what should we be evaluating on the appeal of this variance. so, with respect to a variance, the standard of review is de novo. what the charter provides is this the board of appeals hear and determine appeals from the rulings decisions and determinations the z agranting or denying politicals for variances. upon the hearing of appeals, the board may affirm change or modify the ruling.

any of those 5 findings sometimes when woe go through a variance decision one of those 5 findings is subject to a discomfort. because push it to the edge my favorite is impact on the neighborhood. i didn't see impact on the neighborhood. on this one. but i'm not going to that's giving an example what gives me heart burn on variances. but were there any of the 5 findings putting together your responses to the 5, did any of those questions give you heart burn or was it strit forward for snuff gi think the only one that came to question through the press was finding 4 which -- the

granting of such were not material low detrimental to the welfare or injurious to the property. boil this down, in english, it will not really have an impact on neighbors and properties. and that's why it was important that issue was addressed. so the privacy screens were added to address that issue that was raised and i felt this -- that was adequate to allow the project to mote that finding. >> okay. >> second part of my concern, i think it was before any of you appeared on this panel. there was -- you gave a scott, being be you. you gave us a great tutorial on

roof top decks. and the program ters. should we talk about roof top decks in the context of the variance because this did not deal with the specifics of when goes on the officer top decks? or how tell be designed? is that part of a de novo hearing or only deal with the 5 questions? >> the entire project is covered by the variance. there are aspects this trigger the variance. in a case like well is the authority to adopt conscience of approval. that are irrelevant voluntary to the variance decision this does in the mean that you can't touch any part of the project not in the required rear yard. there are reps. there are context. sometimes when is authorized to go in the required rear yard

there needs to be a trade off in the buildable area. to say that is all fair game. it is in the a situation where the roof deck is admit relevant it isseen it is not triggering the variance. >> reference to the item that was i think previous to anybody else's -- arrival on the panel. there was very strict program terse the city had desunrised on officer top decks. related set becomes, related to use and all sorts of things.

is there anything in the roof top deck design we should be concerned with? it was set become from the property line that was key issue in the city's standards. can you address the officer top deck standards? and how this deck meets those or does in the. >> so. to do it layer by lay are the planning code does not have controls specific at this time roof decks and setbacks or design. the guideline don't either other than the fact has language about privacy can be impacted but nothing specific. there was a period of time when planning was being purposeful and -- the department per their instruction developed draft

officer deck guidelines. at that point in timeen though tfgs draft the city was being consistent using. those never went forward. and as of now we don't have anything adopting the department or the planning commission level in terms of guidelines for officer decks. there are consistent design principles we use that come from that process. one is the 5 foot setbacks. and that's for multiple purposes the 5 foot setback is the most consistent thing we are looking at when we look at roof decks in terms of automatic specific guideline we look at where is it in relation to elements and how

it responds to other relevant issues. whether for privacy or other reasons the 5 foot setback is the most consistent guidance we have. >> anything with regard to this roof deck there is a setback. i believe it was mentioned it was 5 foot. is well anything else on the use of this roof deck that would give you heart burn. and with this, are there guidelineos decks related to usage? or light? i remember there was -- another case that we had where it was not a roof deck but it was a roof top -- enclosed glass structure. are with that was well lit it

crowed a beacon of light that would disturb neighbors are there other guidelines that -- planning -- requires or designs to -- >> on the light issue we don't have code control. or guidelines. wlp that is a roof deck or rear deck or yard people do different lighting there. usable open space is used in different ways we don't regulate say you go can't do that activity. or you can't do this. that is not in the code or guidelines or something we d

all types of useful open spaces we don't regulate down to this level. >> we determined this answers the meets the standards of the 5 questions related to variance and with regard to the roof are there areas that you k consider out of compliance to move forward? >> no. no. i issued the letter finding the project met all finalings for the variance and i stand by that. and the fencing that you are suggest would handle privacy. >> correct that is bake in the already to the variance decision. >> thank you. >> thank you. vice president eppler. thank you. a couple questions. i appreciate commissioner swig

get to finding number 4. screening is the remedy to the privacy issue. we dealt with that a lot and look at it from a reasonable standard. in the findings we are looking for things that are injurious. can you give us examples when you found something? what does this mean in terms of the application in >> sure, thank you obviously, the charter does in the elaborate. that's all it says. that determination is case by case by the za. some of common things you find in variance decisions, we talk about residential design guide lines. the guidelines are about being in context and not negative design impacts. if we found the project is not consistent with that it is hard

to make that finding. other than that, that is typically it. and privacy is part of that. privacy is covered by the residential design guidelines. i would say i off the top of my head i can't think of other things where other than design are covered under the issue. because [inaudible]. these are residential projects not all variances are residential. you can have some variances for nonresidential projects and want to make sure other impacts there. for residential project its is eccluseively is it consistent with the applicable design guidelines. >> and then reading the brief. letters with respect top this project, there was some concern

about the imper minute nance of the privacy screen. but in general, sometimes we have 9 degrees of mobility we approve. in the circumstance what would help if this screen were to just disappear? >> essentially the variance decision was specific. in the fact that they were those were added per the zoning add administrator. finding for a space that the reasons we make that is for that screening. one standard conditions is is -- condition number 2. basically future changes. make a new variance. we have the situation, i think this is relevant if you have a situation a variance was heard and there will be a change.

the zoning administrator saying what is in front of me i can't to we will condition it. the options are to issue a letter that has the conditions that say this is what the plans must do or in the board deals with this or of the option have those continues put in the plans so we see it. and the letter in a way what understood they are necessary low part of the decision in any future changes subject to zoning administrator review. and purpose low draft in the a way if they clear they are fundamental to the variance decision. we'll hear from dbi. anything? okay. we will move on to public comment. is there anyone who wants to provide public comment?

lineup against the wall that would be great. >> i'm valerie. i'm owner of the top floor unit 1731st broderick my bedroom faces the concern roof 10 feet away from my bedroom. i'm president of the hoa. [inaudible] for the record i found out i know sounds crazy the construction plan on monday night. i asked the two neighbor below my unit if they knew they never heard that is why we are not directly involved with your appeal otherwise we would. context on the property for 20

years never experienced noise of concern in the bedroom. our bedroom provides a quiet space for from street noise. we live in an old edwardian building. the [inaudible]. this is a large deck located 10 feet from the bedrooms.

located near a residents they want open out door pace.

the third and second floor owner should have right to privacy protected. well is nothing to mitt fwat this. consider partial deck enclosure. this will go i long way in apiecing neighbors. >> thank you. time. >> thank you. >> good evening i'm lisa depaulis and i'm a homeowner. unit number 10. i'm also on the board of directors with valerie the sect and i'm here representing the majority owners in our belling or those that are aware. to continue our position, we want to set guidelines how the space can be used and limit the number of people, hours

prohibiting very large, et cetera. current owner may be committed to respecting right to quiet enjoy am of home including expectation of quality of sleep. the guideline clearly define and limit how the roof deck can be used in the longhaul. we are concerned about reduction of property have you if one of us decides to sell a property or decreased rental value. a quiet bedroom is valuable to many people. lastly i know the board comprised of people who care.

the other concern safety this deck is down. machine who picks up garbage for the city on the block it start in the the full house days the win pushes from the southeast to the northwest. and so we are north of the property. so any cigarette butts. from a fire pit. anything from i bbq i have a fear that a thing will go air scombourn hit in the two bedroom windows capture a curtain and fire could exist. so we are very concerned not aware of this. we were not aware of a neighboring hearing. so again we are caught off guard in the 11th hour. >> sound bouncing off walls

that is piece of mind. the safety of as i understanders and fire, and things such as that are a major concern. >> thank you >> is there anyone else who wants to provide public comment? anyone on zoom? i don't see we will move on to rebuttal. you have throw minutes to address the board. on the privacy screen in the drawings i received on the zoning was on one side of the roof. so, that's manage that may need to be pointed out. well is a privacy on the other side not an issue to attentives on broderick and the setback. educate me the drawings show a 5

foot setback to the occupiable deck but a two foot plant and a foot privacy screen that encroaches 3 foot from property line i wonder photocopy it a permanent structure is the 5 foot start from the privacy screen. we brought up privacy concerns from the first day we received the letter and a phone conversation with the owner. and -- adding a privacy screen with open slats that have clear vows to our children who are rely on the privacy for sense of safety and not feeling like at night when they play somebody could see them in their pace. is concerning. i think minimum we deserve a screen this full seprivate. the one proposed open slat system not. there are still clear views and we should not have to rely on

the owner maintaining plantings to keep our privacy. thank you. we will hear from mr. shore. you have three minutesure charles green in want to make sure i know for the minutes. >> you are fine you both can go up well. >> okay. 3 minutes total. you want to point out this is the first time i'm hearing from 1730 we do -- take concerns in afound. we were with the other healings as well. i have a good relationships.

ir have not had issues with them. i made myself available. they have my phone number. and i believe i told 1730 brozric about the plans which were mailed out on sunday. i believe i was -- telling them in good faith. for the neighborhood meeting we upon sent mailers to the neighbors for this initial meeting i know on the planning side they send out mailers for variance and there was an error for not posting the 11 by 17 paper at the site. neighbors should have receives two noticed about the project. the other thing i would like to note is the window in the light well for 9 and 10 and 1730

broderick are not in the portion where dmr. we are requesting the variance in the rear yard portion. it is further west. mented note. we have questions from president trasvina and commissioner swig. did you have a -- talk about the privacy screen with slats or no slats? yes. is there any possibility for to you accommodate the question we heard. they were -- felt that the slatted screen don't protect their children's privacy. >> yes. so inoir previous correspondence we heard that concern. i had presentd that to the

planner that a solid screen was desired. you know at that 6 foot height. and discussion with the project planner this starts to veer away from the intent of plan and zoning code. are you willing to find a solution this is compliant with the code that better addresses their concerns in >> we will like to address their occurrence. i think to try to find objective clarity through the process, we

will prefer that objective recommendations come from this board or planning department on what should be done rather than a continual back and forth conversation watch that said we are open to further conversation. >> i would like to -- reiterate my commitment. i think the concern in the process has been -- we made several revisions and were never really given a final standards and revise to another meeting but never a target we felt like we could hit without the guidance. we are open to it. >> you have made changes on the privacy occurrence. but not -- heard from the appellate's yes. that works for us? >> not until during the appeal

process. i basketball greg sent a letter saying there were changes turning the slat in with a solid portion in the middle. at that point that was not known it would trig are a new appeal? >> we have questions commissioner wig then -- commissioner lopez. >> per the testimony. does the privacy screen go around the entirety of the deck? being you remind me about that?

it is only on the south side which is facing the bush street neighbors. why? it was brought up by the appellate. the appellate and neighbors were the only neighbors that addressed concern that's where we focused priority. that screen could -- be on the other side. i would be willing to accept that all the way around yoochl one thing that -- i have to bring up that -- just for everybody's add voice we take this seriously. you may move some day and what is -- your successor owner will not know about this hearing when we very diligent about what this thing will look like. not only in terms of legality

and also to make sure it was brought up well. the plants die. >> i can't have. or you put up pleasants and somebody else will put up no plans. that's why we are hyper diligent on this. you may move some day and your neighbor may still being well and go, but there was this hearing. and you know issues arise. that's why we are so meticulous. of course. you know i will take all dbi inspection make sure it is communicated the variance was approved with conscience to future ordinance. my concern enforcement with relationship with myself and the city, obviously with other people's observations to trig and not a separate enforcement contract outside of the city process.

that was something that was a concern i had. i'm going on ask mr. teague. is that how we do trick questions. i will ask about you know the slats. and -- what is that going to trig for they were closed. we will handle that later. >> commissioner? laptop. please.

the setback is the usable per of the desk separation for visual and noise. so it is common it within had 5 foot setback you may have planters and materials like this and what is before you today -- that is what it is like the 5 foot set become to the area of the useful portion of the deck. also this is already addressed but -- the original project already had the planters and fair low tall -- planters wrapping around the deck. the requirement was to add the extra up to 6 feet on the side facing bush that's where the closest neighborers are raising issues and had to have primary windows there. the building at 1730 --

broderick pointed out those are -- windows from a light well and not proirm. for the unit and no comments raised from any of the neighbors in the building that's why that would not be the -- the in terms of my request the experience respond to the privacy issues and focussed on that one side that's where acute issues were. some of the issues raised about occurrence were occurrence with any roof deck no matter where it is and those are i don't think they are adjustable per variance.

extend the privacy screening african-american i don't, my looking at it i don't than would require changes to the finding its is the same concepts. what would closing of the slats do. you in have you the open slats and the issue um -- that the opening of the slats allow somebody to peek in the kids room and disturb privacy. >> it distant angles slats not solid from all angles that is trying to balance the combination of -- allowing light

without giving up privacy. if that was made solid work width planner on the outcome. and my guidance was not specific to the slats could have been a solid wall i don't have a strong continue. what has been propose federal made solid. there would not be negative ramifications or impacts. >> remind me as to in the board, if we approve variance -- there is a subsequent permitting process dh is appealable? >> yes >> this is the vicious is the entitle am. but must be through. find to approve the variance gives permission to move to permit which point.

that would be the option. >> that would be this is in the the this is in the the last call on this radio? >> potential low. >> okay. >> it is an important point so everybody knows this is the issuance of a permit and this project will move forward. now. >> thanks. >> commissioner lopez yoch to piggyback on that last question. and point. the permit holder stage for the project, the plans remain i dent cal at that stage. or they don't. -- it is a common. there is language in planning motions and in variance decision letters this say -- minor changes.

what is the changes and discretion. planning commission will commission a new variance that is for deception. 've admit to quiz out spot with every variance that had ajustsments in a subsequent building her mitt application. something like the privacy screens would you think of this has a minor judgment or

adjustment that does in the require. >> screening for reasons. talked about. the same privacy screen on the other side is blocking neighbor's light in their window. so it depends this case would not from zero to sick feet it is already proposed at 4 feet an extra two feet added on the sides. that would fall in the minor change thwack be accommodated throughout permitting process. >> thank you >> okay. nothing further. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> thank you. and i want to thank everyone participated in this hearing. tonight and provided materials for us including the public and members of the hoa. everyone presents a legitimate

occurrence. in ways that will -- continue and prosecute mote neighborhood harmony. i think that is very person as an out growth. however we decide the matter. i have been critical of the way the city addresses privacy. where we have the right to privacy belongs to a person. and often times on the overnight counter, over the counter permits the person who's privacy is evaluates is not there. and -- mr. teagues i have gone back and forth on this. in this matter, i am confident and i'm pleased that the appellates had the town to make their case on privacy. and mr. short and -- as the permit holder has i believe in good faith, heard those

occurrence. and we heard tonight that as process goes forward i'm confident tht occurrence about privacy can be addressd and will be and i'm a bit hesitant in our try to make changes of any kind. this is a very cramped -- neighborhood. there will be difference of perspectives. we have a valid -- working relationship of all parties involved to be able to address the matters in the future. i'm comfortable with upholding the variance. but open to colleagues if they have particular suggestions or modifications in mind. vice president eppler.

i -- agree with you i frame it just a bit different low. i think. and i feel that in this circumstance the variance holder is willing to work with neighbors. our job it s to if silltate how that works best. and i think your solution in the circumstance because there is the permitting phase. where the final plans will be submitted and there are minor changes the administrator says. and things that don't go back through the planning department this there is the opportunity for the neighbors to work this out.

>> we can do this in the future. commissioner swig. i'm the same way. commissioner. i -- the zoning administrator done his job. they were fulfilled he did that that's what we are here for. of the variance there is the vicious should not be denied. i am comforted by the that's why i asked the question. is there another by the at the apple, yes. so that the appellates tonight if they are concern body privacy again, would commissioner if they are concerned about privacy and concerned about other issues this are not major, then they will have an opportunity to continue that dialogue. under very pleased the permit

holder or the variance requestor is -- fleckable use ear and -- his heart and mind. and -- on going dialogue to try to keep it all going and keep everybody friendly. i have every good faith as we move in the permitting process that will continue and the folks can w it out and we will not see them again. i support variance. i want to echo the statements from the president in commending the permit holder h for neighbor low out reach. and everyone with us here this

evening. that expressed hesitations with the permit. items to challenge the -- project. that said, you know under the lens of whether or not um -- there was an issue with the 5 findings it would be hard for me to find that in this instance. and i think that the project should move forward on that basis. before the last questions about whether there was another by the. i was inclined provide a continuance. i am a bit concerned about the notice issue that was presented with respect to the lack of of a post every and finding out about

the you know less than a week ago. come before us if needed if communications don't result with something this works out for everybody. with that i will move to deny the appeal on basis that the code requirements okay. >> on that motion. president trasvina. >> aye >> vice president eppler >> aye >> commissioner wig >> that motion carries 4-0 and appeal is denied. thank you we are moving on to item 6 this the is discussion and possible adoption of the departmental budget for 26.

and 27. so alec put the presentation up on the screen. for the public. this would be great. we will take a 5 minute recess. thank you. welcome become to the february 12 meeting of the board of appeals. we are on item 8, this is a discussion and possible adoption of the departmental budget for year 26 and 27. commissioners as you know city departments must submit two year

budget proposals by the code. and observe the dead line the board must adopt budgets for 26 and 27. and this presentation provides an over view. budget instruct and update on the current years budget. which is fiscal 25 and recommendations for fiscal 26 and 27. dpras under lying department in anticipated permit application volume. you know rates are analyzed by

the controller's office and adjusted if needed. filing fees make up a % of our budget. movology to page 4. our expenditure budget 60% of the budget covers salary and as is the case for most city departments that is the big of the cost. 30% of the expenditure budget covers services provide by other departments the wonderful city attorney's office. sfgovtv. department of technology. 49 south vaness office and the reminder nonpersonal services like interpretors, copier, parking, appeal management system software. and materials and supplies. so. on page 4. so -- page 5, please.

so, appeal volume for 25 is 55% below the 10 year average of 13 appeals per year. it is down. in part due to the economy. and -- changes to ordinance. allowing for appeals and disallowing appeals for example, reason you know a b 1114 prohibits appeals of permits that add husbanding trend has been to have i reduced number of appeals. let's move on to the next slide, please. >> based on our 6 month report, we are looking at the surplus in the future. projected surplus from surcharges. and -- just moving on. to the next page. slide sen you can see that we also expect a saving in

expenditures. we have -- 4 full time positions. and include which includes i vacancy. that vacancy has been funded. next page, please. so, based on the our 6 among revenue information, we are expecting at this point a surplus we will see, things change in 6 months. so, slide 9. fiscal year 26 and 27 budget. the surcharge ratesien rit revenue needed to cover the expenses in both fiscal years. as i said before the rates may be adjusted by controller's office insufficient to cover expenses we have our city attorney to thank for that previous we had to go to the board of supervisors with the legislative change if any.

increases exceeds the cpi and she suggested we change the ordinance. and so that will make it easier for the controller's office to make adjustments as needed. thank you mrs. cooper for that suggestion it was a good one. and so moving on to slide 10. this gives more specific detail about our expenditures. >> and then -- we can move on -- to -- to page 13. this is the appendix a1. just provides budget detail about our revenue. for each year and more detail on the next page. let's move on to 15. i believe it is.

yea. >> and then lastly, or 16. shows how our surcharges adjusted. over the years. and finally the last slide has information about our filing fees. which have not changed since 2010. that concludes the presentation are there questions? >> commissioner swig. >> with regard to the controller's option to adjust surcharges and the issue related to changing the fees, we are asked to bake in a 25-26, 27 budget tonight. and does that mean the fees

which were noted to us on your slides as well as surcharges currently in place and will be approved tonight. will not be adjusted until we review the next budget? >> the surcharges will be reviewed in april. and at that point the controller's office will do a surcharge analysis and tomorrow whether they believe the surcharges should be adjusted up or down. in order to cover our expenses. >> i think i bruthis up in every time we had one of these i like to go on the record. for them. we are -- looking at this budget and asked to approve this budget and then this budget can be under mined use that strong term ash trailer by the controller's office they choose to change our

fees or our surcharges. and um -- and the excuse has been begin in the past with regard to revenues coming in that they can because they do. and it does not take in consideration and immediately what is happened is oh , there is a change in volume and the we need that revenue because our the surplus hi were worried about is -- eaten up. so, i want to raise that issue that you know we are building a budget built on surcharges and fees. and that -- i would like to call to the attention of the controller's office they should take into consideration the ens and flows of our volume. and therefore the ebbs and flows of revenues based on filings, et cetera. and so just be mindful of this

we look at a budget for 25 and 26 and 27 we are looking today at a snapshot this maintains surcharges and filing fees. >> >> an excellent point and i'm in discussions with them and mayor's budget office regarding our deferred ref now in surplus and how it is treed. i think it is a good idea to have a buffer we don't want to take from the general fund we want to be self supporting if our surplus gets too high we willment to factor nain the surcharge analysis so that we can reduce the surplus. joy think i said in the past, if that is that -- if this ask something the controller's office looks at a would suggest the controller's office they set a -- guideline as to not to

exceed reserve. um because reserves are there for the ebbs and flows of volumes of -- activity to our board. so, look at a 10 year history and the ebbs and flows and set reasonable reserve and if they want to -- adjust and bring that down to -- that -- cap that would be that would be acceptable. i think but not just ash trailer say. you have a sidesable reserve we should you know. an example of having a former president having a voice and participation. and a commission as well as

elsewhere. to be able to have expertise and experience in seeing the budget year after year is helpful. and i spoke en with mrs. well neymar about various matter in the power point and i'm mraezed to -- know that she is on top of the things, there are things we can control in our budget and cannot. other things we can control it is mrs. lamar who is controlling and i'm confident that we are at a point at the this point in the fiscal year where we will be able to complete our year and with a good sense of prickability as to where we will end up the en of the fiscal year and we are in good position for fy26 and 27. one areas which we don't control but when i see the appeals drop, in the source of the change of

the number was -- because there were fewer controversies or peoples views were addressed without the need come. i think we would celebrate that. unfortunately with legislation, there are some occurrence this people have they no longer have i voice. they no long are have the ability to present themselves to us and we see this in the decrease in the number of appeals. i think within this budget and in future budgets there are opportunity for us and there is recommend in the budget to help educate the members of public. perhaps with other parts of the city agencies to let people know what rights and are what the appropriate things are to -- to -- come before us. an effective brief may be. so we can make sure that as when i sdarted the meeting the mayor

agnosthe people's tribeunal for appeals we can carry that out to all parts of san francisco. so i believe this budget and the all of the interactions i'm impressed with ms. well neymar working with the controller's office and mayor's office and budget people to give them an update on what we are a small budget give them an update to possible changes they may have in mind. the impact on the work of the board. so i appreciate her hard work and makeing presentation and alex as well and going forward on the daily shepherding of our budget process and keeping the costs and revenue closely in mind. thank you and i will be prepared after hearing from others to approve our budget going forward. commissioner lopez. >> thank you.

i want to echo the statement of appreciation for ms. well neymar and long way. thank you for always minding to these detail in this business. i guess my -- a couple questions with respect to the projected surplus do we have a sense how that compares in size to prior years? >> based on the 6 mont report it is sizeable. last fiscal year we had a 150 thousand dollars surplus. prior we did not. we had tough years, a lawsuit and we had the surcharges reduced so much and had run throughout reserve so, i think these are leap budget times. we have a surplus. they are amenable to having a

buffer and keeping a reserve. they don't want us to draw from the general fund. i believe appeals are a function of how permit issuance. permit issuance is down i get the specific numbers for you become to you with that information. what are projections fiscal 20 i see a modest increase in revenue are we with the projections tweaking projecting kershaw charges will increase or projecting that the volume of permitings will increase?

>> well, that is to be determined in april looking the controller's office will look at volume of permits and the costs associated with the board. usually the costs rise a bit every year we have a surplus they say there is no need to raise the surcharges we will reduce the surplus especially if i don't think tell en up being 276 thousand dollars. that is am a guess at this point. a lot can change in 6 months. i would not imagine that if we have the 276 and 150 we would not increase surcharges they might want to decrease them a bit. so. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. i agree with my colleagues about how strong low the budget has been managed and it is great to see on the expenditure sides we are doing keeping cost in check.

my question relates to the possibility of budgets in the city's future and the possibility of that and we are a very, very small drop in the bucket when it come to the city budget. how in the past has the department handled it when there have been mandates for budget cutting? >> general low they apply a lot of types to the general fund departments like mayor breed former mayor breed mandated a 15% cut. but we are so small and we are self supporting that is the good news. out of all the city departments in fiscal year 25 we had the smallest budget in the entire city. i feel like we are efficient. we only have three full-time employee alec, myself and mara and they do a great job. so, i don't know how much leaner we can