traz vina and eppler. also city attorney will provide needed legal add viechls the board's assistant alec. we will be joined by representative from thes city departments that will present before the board this evening. corey teague reporting planning. kevin birmingham building inspector with dbi. john in engineer with public works. and we expect chris buck, san francisco public works forestry. upon surgeon off all electronic device. no eating or drinking in the roomful the ruleers as follows. appellates, permit holders 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people afill yatd must include comment in thes 7 and 3 minute period. rehearing the parties have 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. >> members of the public not credit parties have 3 minutes. and though rebuttal. time may be limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long. you will get a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing e mail staff at board of appeals. now public access and participation ar

eppler you made it. i'm the attorney for on the request for hearing on 617 sanchez street, new construction of this four-story single-family resident. we, request president lopez to be able to submit a 48-page text of the board, meetings on 617 sanchez appeals as broadcast. and we have them here and ready to submit them but, should i wait right now for your decision? or keep going? >> just to clarify you're seek to go submit a brief to the board? >> no, submit a text transcript of the last hearing. >> i believe she wanted submit something to the board and ask permission from the president to do so. >> do you have physical copies? >> yeah. >> sure. and also she used some of her time to ask that, should i reclaim that time? >> yes, let's have her reclaim that time. >> speaker: thank you. the commission really zeroed in on a couple of issues struggled with the things that are here. >> and this is generated by a i? >> yes, and we only changed the spelling of names, the names why wr* misspelled. >> i'll start

that help commissioner eppler. thank you. you know, this i generally agree with commissioner swig. i do note that the remodel of this building takes a stairwell that runs perpendicular to the, the width of the lot out, increasing the space in, in, in the back, or at least the usable and functional space in the back and creating more distance between it and its rear neighbors. i, you know, i, i think i have, you know, some questions around the, the depth of the, the fire escape and whether it's all necessary. i mean, that that depth is necessary. but you know, it's allowed. it's been approved by the, by the department of building inspection and you know, whether or not it, it can or does or does not qualify or as a rule will be used as private open space, i think is a bit of a moot point when it comes to what's actually required for that. and so, you know, i, i don't like the process that this is followed. i don't like the, the way that this, this project may have have interfaced with its neighbors and vice versa. but at the end of the day, we had a, a set of requests. i'm not, you

traz vina and eppler. also city attorney will provide needed legal add viechls the board's assistant alec. we will be joined by representative from thes city departments that will present before the board this evening. corey teague reporting planning. kevin birmingham building inspector with dbi. john in engineer with public works. and we

eppler, you've been the leader with booster with your back grounds as an attorney with you get us to the basic principles, you're reflecting on the inclusion of large buildings such as lab biolab. >> i'm sorry can you repeat the question again. >> i would like you to take us into the eastern neighborhoods considerations about lab buildings, building size and why this particular building in your mind does not fit? >> thank you for that. so the eastern plan was broken into three parts. at the time fs a mission bay while the university was there, it was the tail wag of the dog development. and in both plan and in the central water plan, which comes as dog patch there were mindings that they were creating this mix use zoning which is a new zoning classification and that mix zoning was designed to provide a buffer against large commercial pieces, including office space, restrictions in office space that are floor restrictions but you cannot have a large office building. restrictions against heavy production, the industrial uses that got zoned in distribution repair and there were buffers