Okay. Good evening and welcome to the september 27th, 2023 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. President rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by Vice President jose lopez. Commissioner john trasvina, commissioner alex lundberg, and commissioner j. R. Eppler. We expect deputy City Attorney john givner to arrive shortly, and he will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls is the boards legal assistant, alec longway, and im Julie Rosenberg, the boards executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Id like to welcome andrew perry, a planner with the Planning Department, who will be representing the Planning Department. And we also have Matthew Green, Deputy Director of Inspection Services with the department of building inspection, and chris buck, urban forester representing San Francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. Now, t
With the department of building inspection, and chris buck, urban forester representing San Francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. Now, the Board Meeting guidelines are, as follows the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. The boards rules of presentation are as follows appellants permit holders and Department Respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliate with these parties must include their comments within these 7 or 3 minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there are large number of speakers for cases that have been previously heard. The parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. Mr. Longway, our legal
Certain places on a regular basis and, and whatever, whether it was a pothole, a sidewalk or the Little Things from the bigger things, you know, really, she still believed in San Francisco as an extraordinary place. Yes. And we had to work hard every single day to deal with those challenges, no matter what. All right. Thank you. Okay. Good evening and welcome to the september 27th, 2023 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. President rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by Vice President jose lopez. Commissioner john trasvina, commissioner alex lundberg, and commissioner j. R. Eppler. We expect deputy City Attorney john givner to arrive shortly, and he will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls is the boards legal assistant, alec longway, and im Julie Rosenberg, the boards executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Id like to
The project sponsor stated that there was a larger project next door. Variance are be precedent setting. The fact that there is a variance granted here does not immediately justify this variance, but for me, a couple factors here. The building, as we know is historic, which can generally, as you know, restrict or direct development on the lot. There is a pretty large front set back of about 10 feet. This is a much shorter lot than normal, about 75 feet deep. Just if seeing this project without context, my response was negative, that, you know, just encroaching all the way to the rear property line, but looking in the context here, and i think it is what in my mind is unprecedented as the Development Pattern on this block, and the number of buildings that are developed in this manner, including extensions that go to the rear property line, so that, to me, allows me to support a variance that they are seeking here. I think a code compliant alternative would probably be more harmful to th
Immediately justify this variance, but for me, a couple factors here. The building, as we know is historic, which can generally, as you know, restrict or direct development on the lot. There is a pretty large front set back of about 10 feet. This is a much shorter lot than normal, about 75 feet deep. Just if seeing this project without context, my response was negative, that, you know, just encroaching all the way to the rear property line, but looking in the context here, and i think it is what in my mind is unprecedented as the Development Pattern on this block, and the number of buildings that are developed in this manner, including extensions that go to the rear property line, so that, to me, allows me to support a variance that they are seeking here. I think a code compliant alternative would probably be more harmful to the pattern here, which i think has some unique character to this block, so for those reasons, i could be supportive of the variance theyre seeking here. Thank you