Remarks by Robin Abad Ocubillo
71 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 3
- Play at 43:44
“Yes, thank you. Hi, Zoning Administrator Teague. Earlier you mentioned that the existing proposed deck, which is somewhere in the order of 8 by 20 feet, fits within the existing buildable area of the lot of the subject property. I noticed that the property next door has the same lot depth, and the building footprint of that house is equivalent. It's relatively the same. So really, either property owner has recourse to building a privacy structure exceeding 10 feet within that buildable area, assuming that the rear yard setback requirement is going to be equivalent for both properties.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 44:56
“And something like a privacy wall or screen exceeding 10 feet would be within that buildable area, so long as it doesn't push past, say, 20 or 25 feet towards the rear lot line?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 45:29
“So there are maybe a few different degrees of strategy that could be deployed. Maybe a taller fence, it might trigger if in excess of six feet. A building department review, maybe a planning department review. But the point is that both the appellant as well as the permit holder could employ strategies to address visual privacy. That is correct. Contingent upon one or the other necessarily to I guess a fair representation. Yeah. Yeah.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 48:57
“Thank you, President Chasvina. Yeah, I think to the zoning administrator's point, the previous permit for the interior improvements within the existing building envelope were a separate process, a separate approval, and one that I believe would trigger neighborhood notification. And I suppose I should have lodged this question with the zoning administrator while he was up here. So excuse me for asking the question out of order. But the point is that those improvements are within planning code. They were executed as such and went through due process in order to be approved. And so I'm less…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 55:51
“Yes, following on the suggestion of Vice President Soroyan, I appreciate your efforts to always bring us together and to think creatively and find compromise. And so I might make a suggestion to amend the appeal along the lines of something like we encourage the parties to speak directly. It sounds like that hadn't quite happened yet. to see if there's any collaboration that can happen on either side of the property line, even if it's commitments around times of day or school nights or something along these lines. We all do live on top of each other here in San Francisco. And I'm fortunate…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:04:26
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:05:20
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:05:48
“Okay. So you did that when you remodeled your house. You're asking your neighbor to do the same as they remodel theirs. Is that correct? To put the vents through the roof and not through the wall? Yes. Thank you. There's four total items. The second item that I want to check with you on is that you mentioned in your brief that the fence that you had built was damaged. Did you... want us to somehow address that in this hearing? You mentioned that you built a fence when your neighbor was remodeling their property and that it has since been damaged. But there wasn't anything more specific in…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:06:42
“I understand. So your neighbor did not share the cost with you for that. No. But you're saying that there was some damage. Yes. OK.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:07:02
“Thank you for clarifying. I have two other items I want to double check with you on. The following two items are not in your written brief, and I just want to understand if you're asking us to consider those in our deliberation today. You had mentioned you would like a setback or a buffer, and you've mentioned a dimension of three feet, three feet wide setback or buffer. Is that something, again, this is something you didn't submit in writing to us and you just introduced in your written, in your spoken statement. So did I hear you correctly that you are also asking us to consider a…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:07:43
“Okay. Great. And then you had also mentioned, could you clarify what you meant about firefighting or fire safety? That was one of the items in your spoken testimony, but I would appreciate if you could further clarify.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:08:15
“Thank you for clarifying. So I have four items, and some of them I think I'll have follow-up questions for both DBI as well as the planning department. One has to do with ensuring that vents go through the roof and not through the walls, maybe addressing something about the fence. I don't know if we can impose or even address that, so maybe I'll pose that question to the city attorney when the time comes. there's a three-foot setback request from the property line and then a concern about emergency access and i would imagine that because these plans were approved as they are that they satisfy…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:26:02
“Hi, good evening. The permit holder had mentioned both in their written materials and in their verbal presentation that their architect has indicated that as their project planner, essentially the permit holder is committed to ensuring that the vent goes through the roof. And so it's recorded here in the brief, but is that recorded or lodged at all with DBI? Is that noted as part of the permit record? Not at this time? Not at this time. OK. So that commitment exists purely between the appellant and the permit holder as their own civil communication, as well as whatever they've submitted in…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:26:52
“And so there is a further phase of detailed review where you're looking at, as you mentioned, architectural, structural, HVAC, building systems, so forth. When is that the next step for the permit holder? Or when are they required to submit that documentation to DBI for review in the sequence of a project like this?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:27:24
“So presumably a detail like the location of any vents and where those penetrations are on the ceiling, the roof plane, et cetera, that would be in that and it could be...”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:28:04
“The appellant made reference to maybe some concern about emergency access or egress from the property, first responder, accessibility. Can you speak at all to those concerns?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:33:27
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:35:59
“Thank you, President Trasvigna. Yes, I do appreciate both parties coming forward tonight and expressing themselves. And I do believe that all the issues that were raised by the appellant were duly addressed or fall really beyond our remit. for example, disagreements about fence posts and laundry lines. So I do feel satisfied that any fire safety ingress, egress, emergency responder issue, of course, is duly addressed in the course of DBI's review. And that there's sufficient documentation in the record that you know vents will will be placed at a sufficient sufficient setback or distance from…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:46:07
“Thank you, President Trasvigna. And yes, I echo the appreciation. The report is very thorough. It's important for us to be able to see year-over-year trends and numbers, not only the fiscal ones, but just in terms of our caseload. and how those divide in terms of the decisions that we render. Just a clarification question and maybe a couple comments. One is, is this an action item in terms of us taking action? OK, great. So I have a comment on page 1319 and then the page with carryover surplus.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:46:47
“Starting with page 13, then I'll have a question about page 19, and then a question about the page with the carryover surplus.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:46:59
“I don't think it's necessary. I can generalize. Yeah, we break down subject matter by different jurisdictions, DPH, Public Works, Arts Commission. DBI and planning are conjoined. And I wonder if the commission has ever contemplated Atomizing that You know, sometimes it's a building permit. Sometimes it's a planning permit there. They are different concerns and I Wonder if that degree of resolution would be helpful or supportive It's it's not a comment or a request for a revision to this.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:48:23
“No, thank you for drawing my attention to the chart on page 13. I think the narrative on page 13 as well as the table on page 14 are organized slightly differently. And so I think I missed that in the table on page 13, ZA, DBI only, and then planning and building were separated. Categorized differently so me just observing some different ways of reporting and talking about things nothing monumental moving on to You said page 19 Page 19. I appreciated how you broke this down for us in your verbal presentation in terms of percentages. These are like raw numbers. And I wonder if, yeah, in future…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:51:15
“So we're completely self-sustaining. Yeah. Just, again, want to echo the kudos from President Trasvina, staff, for the reporting, I think, especially as the discourse around our overall city commission structure and, you know, discussions, contemplation of conjoining or absorbing the work of other commissions within our own potentially that's been suggested. So this is helpful as we think strategically about how we handle things and handle ourselves. So thank you for the work.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:53:32
“No, no changes, just questions. Thank you, President Transvino.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 23, 2026
- Play at 1:45:21
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026