Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, and welcome to the March 4th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvena will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan and Commissioner Jose Lopez. Commissioner Abad is absent tonight. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Up front, we have Corey Teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department, Joseph Ospital, senior building inspector with DBI, and Carrie McElroy, also a senior building inspector. 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 rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. For cases that have been previously heard, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. 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 a large number of speakers. Mr. Longley, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Since we have a vacancy on the board, three votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules, or hearing schedules, please email board staff at boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGov TV cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the homepage of our website at sfgov.org forward slash BOA. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways, one in person, two via Zoom, or three by telephone. To attend via Zoom, please go to our website, sfgov.org forward slash BOA, and under the calendar, click on the link next to today's date, and then click on the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, please call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 973-7869-1661. And again, SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. You will have two to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on TV and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we'll take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay, thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. Item number one is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? I don't see anyone here or on Zoom, so we will move to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Board of Appeals. We have a number of matters that have been before us before and one new matter. And I think in common, I want to assure those of you who are returning and those of you who are new that we have, I'm confident we have reviewed the materials that you all have provided. We appreciate your diligence and your faithfulness to this process. It's an important process both for the city, for the permit holder, for the appellant and the public. We look forward to hearing your presentations and I will yield to my colleagues if there are any OTHER REMARKS? IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD OR HEAR FROM PUBLIC COMMENT ON MY COMMENT AND THEN MOVE FORWARD.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3. COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION ARE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2026 MEETING.

I move to adopt the minutes of the February 18th, 2026 meeting.

Okay. On that motion, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

Vice President Soroyan? Aye. So that motion carries. I did forget to ask if there's public comment on this item. No, I don't see any. So on that motion, we have three ayes. And so that three to zero, the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number four. This is appeal number 25-054, Simon Little versus the zoning administrator. Subject property, 20 Burnside Avenue. Appealing the issuance on November 21, 2025 of a variance decision. The proposal is to remove the existing approximately four foot vault four foot tall fence and construct a new six foot tall solid fence at the front of the property containing a two story single family building. Planning Code Section 132 requires the subject property to provide a front setback equal to the adjacent property with the shortest front setback. The required front setback at 20 Burnside Avenue is approximately 7 feet 6 inches from the property line on Burnside Avenue. The proposed fence would be within the required front setback and exceed the 3 foot tall solid fence permitted by Section 136C-17. So this is variance number 2025-003868. The zoning administrator denied the front yard variance. The case was heard on January 28th, and upon a motion by Vice President Soroyan, the board voted 4-0 to continue this matter to March 4th to allow time for the appellant to prepare written findings in consultation with the zoning administrator to support the issuance of a variance. The variance shall take into consideration the promotion of privacy and safety for the children, and the impact of the fence on the public. The party shall consider the height, setback location relative to the property line, and the permeability of the fence. And so we will hear first from the zoning administrator and then the appellant. Welcome. You have three minutes.

All right, good evening, President Trasvinia, commissioners, Corey Teague, zoning administrator for this case. I just wanted to let you know that following the last hearing, I did meet with the applicant. We did land on a compromise designed, and the intention was to develop findings to support granting the variance and approving the variance based on those findings. However, before that could happen, It was determined that actually the existing fence location and then the proposed fence location was actually not on the actual private property on that lot it was actually Approximately three feet into the public right-of-way That was confirmed with the Department of Public Works and because of that technically the variance was issued in error because it wasn't consistent with the Planning Code and technically the jurisdiction for a permit to replace that fence would be through a minor encroachment permit through the Department of Public Works and I did speak directly and coordinate directly with the Department of Public Works to give them the background of the situation and the details of this case. And they were able to confirm with me that the minor encroachment permit process was the appropriate process. And given the work that had already been done around the variance proposal, including at the Board of Appeals, as well as the specific context of this property and where the fence was located, that it was very likely that the compromise PROPOSAL WOULD BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF OTHER WORKS AS WELL. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS WITH THAT PERMIT FOR THAT MINOR ENCROSSMENT PERMIT. SO GIVEN THAT, THE FINDINGS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE FINDINGS THAT WERE DEVELOPED BETWEEN me and the applicant and also with review by Board of Appeals staff to technically grant the appeal but still deny the permit or not permit but deny the variance on the grounds on jurisdictional grounds essentially that the permit isn't the variance isn't the valid approval instrument in this case given the location of the fence within the public right-of-way but including information that kind of confirms the history of the case and the deliberation by the Board of Appeals, which was that if the variance had been appropriate, if the property line was located where it was originally considered to be, that the compromise design would have been supportable under the required five findings for a variance. So that's the nature of what's happened since our last hearing. What we have in front of you is... proposed findings to that effect, essentially. And it's our recommendation, and I believe the applicant will concur, to grant the appeal, deny the variance on the grounds of jurisdiction, but with the very specific findings, including what was proposed and submitted to the board for your consideration. But I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. President Tresvena has a question.

As always, I appreciate your work and in particular I'm pleased that the permit holder and you were able to work together. At the last time we convened, we asked for you both to come up with language to support the variance and the events that you've described intervened where it now appears that the variance isn't appropriate. We have the encroachment, minor encroachment issue. I am wondering why we should not just dismiss the request for the appeal on the variance because he's no longer requesting, they're no longer requesting a variance.

Sure. Thank you for that question. And that makes sense. I think the straightforward answer to that is that right now the variance decision is before the board. And the question is, was there anything that the board finds that the variance was kind of incorrect in? And in this case, the answer is yes, kind of for two different reasons. Under the planning code, there's really no provision for any type of administrative rescinding of a variance decision. In fact, it kind of says the opposite. Planning Code Section 305 kind of encompasses all of the Requirements and kind of structure for for variances and how to consider them and it basically states specifically that once the zoning administrator Issues a various decision letter that that decision becomes final after ten days unless it's been appealed And then obviously the Board of Appeals It's in your court. So at this point in time the variance decision is in your court and there's if If you were to deny the appeal, then the effect would be that there's still a denied variance, but for very different grounds. Those findings would still stand in the record. And we don't have, again, an administrative way to rescind that. Again, after conversation with the property owner and with the attorneys, we all agreed that this was essentially the cleanest path for the record.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. We'll now hear from the applicant. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Just give me very brief and say thank you really to the board for considering this, directing us towards a good solution and also to the zoning administrator. We worked really well with him and found a solution that met the planning needs of the planning department, met our needs, I think achieved the things we talked about as a team, as a group last time. So really just saying thank you. And the zoning administrator and the city discovered this little hiccup at the end. But I agree with the zoning administrator for the sake of clarity and given that we got essentially, I felt, the Board of Appeals approval to find a solution that met those needs for security and some extra privacy, and then we did the work to find a compromise solution that did that whilst respecting the needs of the city, the desire of ourselves and the zoning administrator and the planning department is to have that sort of on record so that as we go forwards with this other mechanism, that it's on record that that was the kind of intention of the board, the intention of the planning department. We all work together to try and achieve that. We achieved that and it's really just an administrative bureaucratic pathway issue. And so I support very much what the zoning administrator said of that pathway. And just round out with, again, a thank you to the board for flexibility. The zoning administrator who was very, very, very constructive and reviewed all these different plans that we came up with. And yeah, delighted we found a path that was appealing to both sides. So thank you, everyone, for making this process work.

Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any public comment. So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you. I'll call on Vice President Soroyan.

First, I want to say I'm so encouraged that the zoning administrator and Mr. Little were able to come to a compromise. I think that is what we're here for, and if we can help encourage that, I'm delighted. And I also want to say thank you for your presentations today. I believe that Mr. Teague outlined that the planning department does not have the ability to administratively dismiss the variance, but the board does. And I wanted to highlight section 11 of our rules that allows for administrative dismissals should the matter become moot. And I really think that that might be the most appropriate way to move forward now. So I would posit to my colleagues that we, and I will read it into the record, section 11, administrative dismissals. And these are under the Board of Appeals rules. The executive secretary shall administratively dismiss any appeal for which the underlying subject matter has become moot as a matter of law. The executive secretary shall promptly notify all parties to such appeal that the matter has been dismissed. I would make a motion to have the executive director administratively dismiss the appeal. Pending discussion.

Thank you, Vice President Soroyan. I am inclined to support the approach that you've just described and also reiterate your praise and your appreciation as do I, for the work of the zoning administrator and the requester of the variance. We asked you to work something out, and as has been described, you came across the issue that the variance is no longer needed. The encroachment permit is needed. If that is the case, and as the zoning administrator has stated, reaching out to Public Works is confident that that will proceed in a positive manner. There's never any guarantees on this, but it should proceed in a positive manner. It now appears that we have nothing left to do. And what we did ask for were a set of findings. Unfortunately, the findings don't get us to a basis to grant the variance and, for that matter, the appeal. So I think the cleanest way of resolving this matter and the quickest is for us to just step away from it through the administrative dismissal. Commissioner Lopez, would you have anything to add?

Not really to add. I would echo a lot of what's been expressed. I guess I would have a question for our deputy city attorney with respect to the impact of an administrative dismissal as compared to the plan of attack that was suggested by the deputy ZA.

Thank you, Commissioner. Well, I think in either case, the variance is going to be denied, so there will not be a variance granted. In one case, well, the variance was initially denied, so dismissing it administratively essentially would reaffirm that decision. If you were to grant the appeal and modify it, you would be changing for the record the basis of the decision. So a lot of it is sort of on the record sort of what the board is expressing with respect to this appeal generally. But in the end, there would be no variance granted.

OK, so we have a motion from Vice President Soroyan to direct the executive director to administratively dismiss the appeal as moot since the appellant is not eligible for variance and instead must secure a minor sidewalk encroachment permit. Okay. On that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. President Chesvena? Aye. So that motion carries 3-0, and I will process that request tomorrow. Thank you. So we are now moving on to item number five. This is appeal number 26-001, Simon Scott versus the Department of Building Inspection, Planning Department Approval, Subject Property, 205 Fairmount Street. Appealing the issuance on December 22, 2025, to Daniel Guinasso of an alteration permit. Revision to permit application number 2017-0906-6976. SECOND FLOOR NEW DECK TO BE EXTENDED. THIRD FLOOR ADDING NEW DECK OVER NEW ADDITION. ADDING NEW CLOSET AT EXISTING REAR OFFICE TO BECOME NEW BEDROOM. REFERENCE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 2025-0917-55-58. THIS IS PERMIT NUMBER 2025-0910-55-58. 5039 note on february 18 2026 upon motion by commissioner abad the board voted three to zero to one commissioner lopez absent to continue this item to march 4th so that the parties can work on a compromise that takes into consideration the height of the firewall and privacy screen a possible setback of the deck and the materials that will be used for firewall and privacy screen And as a preliminary matter, Commissioner Lopez, did you have an opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for the hearing that took place on February 18th?

Yes, I did, and I'm ready to proceed.

Okay, thank you. So we will now hear first from the appellant. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Good evening to the board, and thank you for speaking here once again to listen to my appeal. So as a reminder, I was here two weeks ago to appeal the construction of a new rooftop deck on the permanent holder's property, and in particular to appeal the construction of a firewall, a privacy wall, on the side of the deck that abuts the property line. So this was the original design, which was a solid wall that's six feet above the height of the deck, the base of the deck. I requested two weeks ago that some changes be made to that wall. I requested that it be made from a transparent material, that the height be reduced from 6 feet to 30 inches with a guardrail at 42 inches above the height of the deck, and that there be no privacy fence or screen or anything else above that 42-inch height. And this idea of this was that it would still allow the deck to be built to code, but would minimize the impact on the light and airflow into our backyard and kitchen. Since then, we took your advice, and myself and the permit holder have met. We've discussed a number of different solutions, and believe we've come up with a compromise solution to this wall. The compromise is kind of shown on the right here. It is a solid, opaque wall along the side of the deck. no more than 42 inches in height from the surface of the deck to the top of the wall, and then there would be no privacy fence or screen or anything else above that 42-inch height. While this compromise does not quite meet all of our requests, it's not transparent and it's 42 to 30 inches, we decided it's probably the best compromise that we'd reach, and so at this point we accept the compromise. I did just want to make one quick clarification. There was a question for the record last time about where is the actual grade in our backyard. It seemed uncertain. A lot of these photos are showing from outside of the property. It's showing a wooden deck. It's going to be removed and turned into a lawn. The actual true grade of the property line is actually six feet below that deck. The grade is pretty far down. which means that the rooftop deck surface is actually nine feet above the grade at our property, which is why if you had a six-foot wall on top of that, that six-foot wall would end up being 15 feet above grade, which is why we thought it was excessive because of our actual grade. And so that's why we've agreed to this 42-inch height, which I think ends about nine and a half feet above grade. But yeah, we're happy that we managed to reach a compromise. 30 seconds. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I don't... Vice President Soroyan?

So again, Mr. Scott, thank you for working with your neighbors.

Your speaker, please. Microphone. Thank you.

Mr. Scott, thank you again for working with your neighbors to come up with a compromise. This is two in a row. This is unprecedented in my time on the board. But I did want to ask you, so let's just play this out. We are foreseeably granting the appeal with the modifications that you've made. Are you prepared to submit a a compromise plan?

I think that would be up to the permit holder.

I think we have that? And we have that?

I think it would probably be up to the permit holder to submit a modified plan. I mean, I've just submitted drawings, and I think they'll be presenting some drawings today, some renderings. But yes, it would be nice to see a plan on record that matches this compromise.

OK. And we're hearing from the permit holders next. So we'll see what they have to say. But thank you so much.

Thank you. You can be seated. We'll now hear from the permit holder. Mr. Quanasa, you have three minutes.

Okay. Hello.

Welcome.

Welcome. So after the previous hearing, Peggy and I took a moment to meet with Simon and Renee. We set up a meeting in their yard that following Sunday, and before our meeting, We met with the contractor and came up with a couple of alternate solutions for the parapet slash privacy wall. We explored a 42-inch wall that had a two-and-a-half foot. Sorry.

Overhead, please.

So we had a 42-inch wall with two-and-a-half feet of redwood lattice on top. the diffused glass on top. Both options there were raised into six feet tall for providing privacy, but also giving light and air to both properties. While meeting with Simon and Renee on the 22nd, they were adamant that the wall not be six feet tall and that they were not really concerned with the privacy They explained that a wall that high would block their sky. And standing in their yard that day, we were able to get a feel for their concerns. So after some discussion, we ended the meeting with me saying that I would build a small section of sample wall. to get a better visual. And then we would meet in two or three days. So that afternoon, I built a small section of wall, 42 inches high, and placed it on the edge of our roof. And standing on the roof next to the wall, I could see into their yard. And we put a 2 and 1 half foot tape on top of the wall, measured up to 6 foot. And we could see that it would block out their sky and their yard. And we decided that the fair thing to do would be to keep the parapet at 42 inches. with no privacy wall on top. So a day later I saw Simon in the yard and I informed him that Peggy and I had settled on the 42-inch wall and I said that we felt that with the closeness of our properties we'd have to coexist and give each other the privacy that we deserved and warranted. Simon said he could live with that, but he wanted to run it past Renee. And later, Simon texted me and said that they were in agreement with our proposal and that we should move on with our briefs. So I wanted to thank Simon and Renee for their time and understanding. And I also want to thank DBI, planning, zoning, and the board for your guidance with this process and this whole matter.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any questions, so you can be seated. Thank you. We'll now hear from the planning department.

Good evening again, President Trasvini and Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator. We discussed at some length at the last hearing on this case that this is kind of an unusual situation with just the context that we're dealing with. Won't go into all those details. I'll get straight to the point, which is we have reviewed this proposal, and given the context and the nature of these deliberations, What's being proposed is co-compliant and consistent with the residential design guidelines. And we would have no problems with this outcome. But I'm available for any questions you would have.

Thank you. Oh, Vice President has a question.

Yes, Mr. Teague, I'm delighted that we may have another compromise, as I said before. So what would we need to do or what would need to happen with the existing permit in order? Would it be revised, consistent with the board's recommendation? How would that play out?

Yeah, I'll defer to the executive director on the mechanics, but typically if you are granting the appeal and approving a modified version, there have to be plans that you're basing that off of. And then based on that decision, then a special conditions permit is obtained after the fact to document the revised scope of work. So the board's action would be to grant the appeal and approve the permit as revised, consistent with the plans that have been submitted today.

And you've seen the plans?

I have seen. I mean, this is very... Getches. Right. Like, this is not necessarily the... I think what was presented, and that was the architectural plans. But there's also... There are visuals that have been submitted. There's also very clear numerical dimensions that have been proposed, which is only 42 inches above the floor of the deck as well. But again, I would defer to the executive director on the exact mechanics. OK. All right.

Thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, I mean, you could just grant the appeal, issue the permit on the condition it be revised to make the wall to be solid and opaque, fire rated wall to be built along the side of the deck that abuts the appellant's property line up to a height no higher than 42 inches. We could later, we don't need plans right now, as long as you state that for the record. The permit would not be unsuspended until those revised plans are submitted and approved by me and DBI, and then they would get a special conditions permit. But this is pretty straightforward and simple, 42 inches max. Excellent. Okay.

And I would also add to the motion that the specifications are as mutually agreed to and represented by the parties.

Yeah, on the basis, yeah. But we still need to hear from DBI.

Good evening, Commissioners. Joseph Fospital, Senior Building Inspector, Department of... Billing inspection. I just wanted to say that the proposed modifications are code compliant, and DBI recommends that the appeal be upheld with a special conditions permit required, which lays out the conditions of the special conditions permit. I'm available for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I don't see any questions, so we'll move on to public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any, so commissioners, this matter is submitted.

First, I want to join Vice President Soroyan in expressing my appreciation for the parties and for the hard work of the city as well. I think we've heard the magic words from the DBI and from planning code compliance. We've heard from the appellant that is a compromise that meets the is acceptable to him and his family. And for the permit holder, we've expressed a real understanding of what it looks like from the other side of the wall. And that, I think, is something that we seek on many of our cases, is to have the neighbors come up with a solution, whether it's a compromise or a solution, that meets their needs and they have an understanding of how it looks to the other person. So I really, really appreciate the hard work to get here from where we have been and where you all have been and the fact that the decision is made substantively. on your street rather than behind a dais is also beneficial and preferable. So I would, not seeing either of my colleagues seeking recognition, I would move to uphold the appeal on the special conditions permit be issued. consistent with the representations of the parties as to what has been mutually agreed upon with regard to the height of the wall and other matters and that we await the subsequent actual plans to be reviewed by the city and by the executive director on the basis that this is an agreement that is code compliant.

Okay. Do you want me to just state for the record what their agreement was?

Yes.

Okay. So we would be, the motion would be to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require a solid opaque fire rated wall built along the side of the deck that abuts the appellant's property line up to a height of no more than 42 inches above the surface of the deck. And then this motion, or this motion was made on the basis of it reflects the agreement of the parties.

And code compliance.

And it is code compliant. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan?

Mr. Gunazo has.

Well, we've.

Can we take, can we pause?

If you're requesting that you're trying to make sure we do not make an inadvertent error and you want to hear from the permit holder, I'd certainly grant that request.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that looking at the plans, I believe that the plans say that it's a 42-inch wall, that it wasn't a six-foot wall. So I don't know if there needs to be an amendment to the plan or any kind of change to the plan. I think that's what the plan originally said.

Am I right?

The plans actually show a 42-inch parapet and then a privacy fence on top of that.

Okay. I think the ones that I have stamped don't show that, but I could be wrong. Just wanted to make sure that we didn't have to go through something we didn't need to.

OK, so I did get votes from Commissioner Lopez and President Cesvenia on the motion previously read. Vice President Soroyan? Aye. OK, so that motion carries 3 to 0. And for the record, do the parties want to waive their right to request a rehearing? Because if they do, then I can issue the decision tomorrow, and then you could start the process of getting the special conditions permit. YES, OKAY. YES, OKAY. SO FOR THE RECORD THEY BOTH NODDED AND SAID YES. WE WILL ISSUE THE WRITTEN DECISION TOMORROW AND MR. GUINASO I'LL GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS PERMIT. WE'LL TALK BY PHONE TOMORROW. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEMS 6A AND 6B. Appeal number 25-049 and 25-050, subject property 1077 Fell Street. Appeal number 49 is appealing the issuance on November 14, 2025, to Stephen Wong of an alteration permit, recommencement and completion of work approved under... PERMIT APPLICATION 2023-04266513, AND RECOMMENCEMENT OF 2023-06-099711. AND FOR APPEAL NUMBER 25-050, IT'S THE APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON NOVEMBER 14, 2025, TO STEPHEN WONG OF AN ALTERATION PERMIT. AND THESE ARE FOR THE RECOMMENCEMENT OF TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS, PERMIT 2023-09267475, And 2024, 0517-2393. So commissioners, these appeals were previously heard on January 14th. And upon a motion by then Commissioner Soroyan, the board voted 3-0-1. Commissioner Lopez absent to continue these appeals to February 11th. so that DBI could provide a factual chart of the permits and the underlying facts and circumstances as specified by Commissioner Abad. More specifically, the date the permit Application was submitted, the date the permit was issued, the anticipated date of permit expiration, the date that the permit was extended and or recommenced, and explanation of the timeline impacts for any recommencements or extensions. And note, it was on January 29th it was necessary to reschedule this matter to March 4th because the February 11th meeting was canceled due to a lack of a quorum. As a preliminary matter, Commissioner Lopez, did you have an opportunity to review the materials and watch the video for the hearing that took place on January 14th?

Yes, I did, and I'm prepared to move forward.

Okay, great. Thank you. So since we did continue it to get a chart from DBI, we would like to request that, as a preliminary matter, I believe the appellant does want to request a continuance, so we're going to give the parties three minutes each to address the board.

Thank you very much. So DBI structural engineering manager Jimmy Chung has done a methodical analysis of the property for which I am extremely grateful. And he outlined a process as shown on this overhead. As of yesterday afternoon, we were in the middle of step three. As of today, the new permit was approved, but I have not yet seen the new plans or the new calculations. Therefore, while I could not get appellant's agreement for this, I respectfully request a short stay with the sincere belief that this will expedite the overall process. This is something that occurred to me yesterday as Mr. Chung said that he could benefit from a little bit more time and this meeting is early. The new plans and calculations are important. As of yesterday, I understand that the appellant now has represented some of the dry rot work, added the brick chimney, corrected hold downs, corrected calculations, corrected heights, corrected the drawings, and added blocking and strapping. This is my understanding based on talking to Mr. Chung. I request a short stay to allow this process to finish, allow my team and I to review the updated plans and calculations, and have a three-party meeting, as Mr. Chung suggested. I believe this could be accomplished in under two weeks. So again, my belief is that this will expedite the overall permitting process. I do not want to come again before the board again appealing the permit that was issued today. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any questions, so we will now hear from the permit holder.

Good evening, board commissioners and Board of Appeals staff. We're here today to talk about Appeals 049 and 050, which are about the recommencement permits. So I don't think a continuance is relevant, because we have all of the information we need to address those appeals. Jimmy Chung did do his district review as requested. And I believe he gave his determination to Joe Hospital. that all of the permits were issued correctly. And so I feel that the board has all of the information that they need. DBI has done their due diligence and has everything they need because they issued our permits today and wrote an internal memo, I was told, that all permits were issued correctly. I feel that this continuance prejudices me in a real way by increasing the delays and carrying costs that I've been having to hold throughout this period. That being said, I do appreciate Jimmy Chung and everyone at DBI for doing this work. I'm super grateful. I feel like I have the safest house in the city. Things have been measured down to the inch. And as part of this review, what they found was that there's more than enough margin structurally than they even discovered before by clarifying all of these details.

so i don't feel that a continuance is necessary okay thank you did the planning department want to weigh in on this request okay dbi good evening again commissioners joe hospital senior building inspector at department of building inspection

I'd like to provide an email from Jimmy. It was sent to me yesterday evening at 4.45 regarding this project. But before I do that, what I would like to do is I would like to stress that the appeal in question is the recommencement of the four expired permits. Okay? And the appellant came up here and, you know, she has her concerns, but those concerns are with the REVISION PERMIT, NOT THE PERMITS THAT WERE RECOMMENSED WITH THESE TWO PERMITS. SO, AND THE RECOMMENCEMENT OF THE PERMITS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE IS PERMITS CAN BE RECOMMENSED AS LONG AS, YOU KNOW, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RECOMMENCEMENT, THEY ARE BROUGHT UP TO DATE, AND THAT THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WORK ON THE PERMITS THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENSED. And that's exactly what happened in this case. None of the scope of works were changed, only the timelines of the permits for the recommencement. And that being said, I will go ahead and put this email on the overhead so that the board can read it.

Just face it towards you as if you're reading it. Can you zoom out a little bit? It's just cut off.

And I can read it as well. What it says is, Joe, per the recommendation of the Board of Appeals, I reviewed the plans and permit applications associated with PA application number 2025-0626-9586, 2024-0517-2393, 2024-0913-0700, 2023-0926-7475, 2023-06-09-9711, and lastly, permit application number 2023-0426-6513. Based on this review, these building permits were not issued in error. I contacted Somya and her engineer to understand their concerns and relay them to Stephen's team. The concerns were either addressed through revised drawings and additional calculations or determined to be not applicable. The revised drawings and calculations have been incorporated into the building permit application 202601223696, which is scheduled for review on Wednesday, March 4th. I have not been privy to the result of that review by Jimmy Chung to date. But again, those concerns were for the permit or for the appeal that was the previous appeal to these two permits. So it's DBI's recommendation that this appeal be denied for the two cases in question tonight for this address and the recommencement be allowed to continue. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, President Chesvena and then Vice President Royan. And we are just talking about the request to continue the item right now.

Yes, that was my question. Rather than the validity or sustainability of the permits, the question before us right now is whether there is a basis to continue the matter One. And second, is it, if you are aware, is Mr. Chung's statement that a delay would be beneficial to him, is that something you're aware of? Do you agree?

That is something I'm not aware of. And I apologize for maybe jumping the gun a little bit. But DBI is ready to move forward, as is only because any review done is being done on something that's not in front of the board tonight. So we would like to get these two appeals off of our plate because the review in the email and the review that was described by the impellent deals with a previously heard appeal and not the two appeals in question.

Well, you've anticipated my second question, which is you've divided or the issue has been divided between this set of permits and another permit. What I'm interested in is whether the work in the permit that is today under review has anything to do with the work of the permits that are before us.

It will consolidate and clarify all of the permits that were listed. Because the original permit was a no plans over the counter permit. And then when they opened up the kitchen, and I'm going by memory, so you'll have to excuse me. But when they opened up the kitchen, they found some things that they wanted to do structurally. And I believe that was one of the permits. And then there was a subsequent permit to do the voluntary seismic upgrade. And the voluntary seismic upgrade was the permit that was appealed in the original appeal before these two appeals. But again, a recommencement is not a change in work. It's not a... All it does is it changes the timeline, and it allows the revisions that have been previously approved to move forward once everything is approved with this final permit that's on Jimmy's desk right now. And it's my understanding that what I heard tonight from the appellant, I'm kind of surprised because it was my understanding that everybody was kind of in agreement with what was happening.

I ask my questions solely to be educated and not to suggest one way or the other. I feel like a jockey who is on a horse getting close to the finish line. And I was with you right until the end. My question is, And again, tell me if I've got this completely misunderstood, but if the action that is under review, described as the latest permit, has an effect on the permits that are before us, wouldn't it make sense for that review to take place so that the city could say, yes or no or something needs to be revised? Please dispel me of the notion that this most recent permit has overtaken the other two permits that are before us.

Commissioner, all I could do is give you the information that I was provided. Again, the permits in question tonight are to recommence four expired permits. It is not changing the scope of work. It's not changing anything but the timeline of the permits. In order to get this latest permit, the 2026 permit, which I believe rolls everything into this final permit, You cannot revise an expired permit, so you can't go forward and get this 2026 permit approved until all the other steps have been taken. Because if it's an expired permit, it's not a permit, so you can't revise a permit that is expired. So in order for this 2026 permit, which was reviewed today, and again, I don't know the outcome of that, but this permit, which will be reviewed, was reviewed today, or will be reviewed and approved, because it sounds like Jimmy was very happy with the solutions that were provided, and it's approvable by code, then that's how this permit would be approved and issued. But this permit can't move forward until those other permits have been recommenced. I hope that gave you a little bit more information.

It gives me more information, and I appreciate it. You're always informative for me. But I want to air my concern so that if there's any opportunity for the parties to weigh in. And I'm not sure in the procedural stage whether there's rebuttal. Ms. Lamar, will the parties have an opportunity for rebuttal on this part of the proceeding? Or is it simply a continuance where they make a presentation?

Just a request for the continuance. Pardon me? No, this is just a, you can choose to entertain this request and vote on it, or you can choose not to and move on to the substance of the hearing.

Well, I guess my question is, in this process, is the testimony completed with the city representatives, or is there rebuttal on what's, like, we usually have rebuttal on the substantive case.

Yeah, right now, this is separate from the appeal. This is just on the continuation. So he will have another opportunity to speak with us about the substantive case. He'll have three minutes. And we don't have rebuttal, typically. Okay.

That's the answer to my question is we don't have a rebuttal on a continuous matter. And what I am concerned about is that as you say we are, that the permits substantively are tied together. What I want to avoid is our having a long discussion on the earlier two permits and then something comes up in the other permit and it's moot. So is there any assurance you can provide that the work that the review which has not yet happened will affect these other two permits?

As a revision permit, and I believe the 2026 permit is a revision permit, as a revision permit, it would affect all of the permits in play beforehand, that were issued beforehand for this project. because it's revising from the mother permit. But I believe that all of the appellant's issues have been addressed. And it seems that Jimmy's email tends to back up that fact. that the appellate's issues have been addressed. He's looked at all the calculations. He's looked at everything. And he says, again, his final sentence in this letter is, the concerns were either addressed through revised drawings or additional calculations or determined to be not applicable. So again, This letter deals with the previously heard appeal. And all I can say is this appeal is for the recommencement of expired permits so that the project can move forward.

Thank you very much. Vice President Soroyan.

I will defer to the city attorney. You can go ahead of me, Mr. Minardi.

Thank you. I just want to say as a procedural matter, while it may not be usual to grant rebuttal to the extent you wish to, you can so long as each party has an ability to speak equal amount of time. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. So Mr. Ospital, I'm trying to understand here what exactly is going on. So there is another permit that

There is a new permit.

In front of DBI, yes.

There is a new permit that has been applied for at the Department of Building Inspection. According to the applicant of the permit, it's been approved. According to my email, as of last night, it was not approved. I don't know if it has been approved today.

It was issued today.

It was issued today. Okay, so it was approved and issued today.

So my question is, Does that permit encompass all of the previously issued permits and all the work? Is it duplicative or authoritative?

No, it's not. I don't want to say it's a duplicate permit, but what it does, it's a permit that was issued that addressed all of the appellant's concerns. Because there were portions of the project that the appellant didn't

Yes.

She appealed a lot of the structural portions of the permit, but there were other portions of the permit that were not appealed. So the permit that was issued today addressed all of the concerns by the appellant, as I was told by Jimmy Chung.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. And so let's say, for example, 6513, permit recommenced.

Yes.

What I heard from you was that if we do not grant, or sorry, deny the appeal, that permit will not be recommenced? And this new permit could be in jeopardy? Is that what you're saying?

That is my understanding of how it works. But again, that permit... was not the issue of the first appeal. So since that permit was not the issue of the first appeal, it was not suspended. But it had expired. So the recommencement of that permit would allow whatever portion of work on that permit was to go forward. But that's just a small part of the whole overall job. I don't know where they are as far as the whole overall job regarding that permit application. I have not made a site visit. I have not been out to the property. The expired permits that were not part of the original appeal have been sitting in limbo. There was work being done to them incorrectly by the applicant at the time, but when it was brought to the applicant's attention, they recommenced those permits. They paid all the applicable fees and penalty fees, and they recommenced the permits. So, again, so Those permits were not being revised by this 2026 permit. The permit being revised by the 2026 permit, I believe, is the permit ending in 9586. I believe.

OK. All right. So would it be your recommendation that we deny the continuance?

It would be my recommendation to deny the continuance so that we can hear the appeal for the recommencement of the four permits in question.

I appreciate your forthrightness. Thank you. I'll defer to my colleague, Mr. Lopez.

Thank you, Mr. Ospital. I'll ask you, and I suspect I may have to turn to our deputy city attorney as well, but let me scope out a hypothetical for you. So we deny the appeal. We hear the appeal tonight, and we deny the appeals of these revival of the four permits. Separately, the appellate appeals the 2026 revision permit. Let's just say for the sake of discussion that the appeal, the revision permit only touches one item across all four permits, even though the four permits cover more than just the item being revised in the 2026 revision. In an appeal in that instance of a 2026 revision permit that only has a narrow revision across the four permits, would her appeal be limited to what was revised? Or would that appeal of the revision permit have a broader scope to reach into other items in the revived permits that were not the subject of the revision permit?

Technically, the appeal would be specific to the 2026 permit. However, the project as a whole would not be able to make it to certificate of final completion until all of those permits associated with the project have been inspected and signed off by the district inspector. So it would have the effect of continuing to stop the project.

OK. So in my mind, just because I think this has gotten a little bit muddied, at least from my perspective, in my mind, if the appellant is more focused on the 2026 permit, the revision permit, then I think we can hear the case tonight. Because if she's more focused on the permit that was issued today, then there's no reason to discuss the four underlying permits. But if she has concerns related to the four underlying permits that are independent of the 2026 revised permit, revision permit, then we should probably hold off on my mind. That's how I'm seeing it.

I agree with you to an extent. I think the extent is that the only way we're going to know that is if we have the parties come back up before us. And I would like to give them each three minutes to make their presentation on the issues that we've just heard. and then also be able to answer our questions. It seems to me this has become unnecessarily complex at this stage of the game just in the past few weeks, and I would like to get an explanation on that. So, Mr. Ospital, I think we will have you relinquish the podium, and I will ask my colleagues for consent to have three additional minutes for each side.

Granted.

OK, thank you. Please, you can go ahead and approach on the- May I ask for clarification?

So this is now three minutes about the- We're still on the continuation request. On the continuation request. OK, so the permit was issued today. I wrote some of my remarks and the slide yesterday. And so I'm going to tell you my understanding. My understanding is that the 2026 permit is everything. It is not just one little wall or squiggly line. It is a complete revision to everything that has happened before. It encompasses an as-built. It encompasses a lot of the errors that I flagged way back in September when I first came before you. It corrects a lot of things that I've been talking about. And I think that we're nearly at the finish line. However, I have not seen anything. So the reason I'm asking for a stay is because I think it would be a lot simpler for me to see everything and say, I'm great with this, than have to appeal the next permit, which I think will hold off everything. So in my mind, these things are connected because my understanding is that this new permit and new calculations replaces everything that came before. And so if we don't have this, which has been sort of coming together in the last minute, if we don't have clarity, if I don't see them, then I don't actually know what's going on. And that's what I'm trying to figure out, is what's going on. And that's why I request a short stay. It could even be less than two weeks, because when I suggested two weeks, things have moved along. We could do it very quickly, but That is what I'm talking about. My understanding is the new permit, which was approved today, replaces everything. I am prepared to talk about the four old permits, but I hope that provides you clarity on where I'm coming from in an open, honest, and transparent fashion.

Thank you. Your testimony, I appreciate it. It prompts two questions. One is, how much communication have you had with the permit holder about the new permit?

I send emails and requests very frequently, but I don't receive responses.

Can you repeat the last sentence?

But I do not receive responses.

So your knowledge of this 2026 permit comes from?

Jimmy.

Mr. Chung. The second question I have is, if you have the ability or knowledge to answer, if we denied your appeal on the underlying permits that are before us tonight,

Yes, I understand so far.

Would you still have, what harm would that do you to your ability to challenge the 2026 permit?

So we're at a crossroads now where, according to Mr. Chung, my issues have been largely resolved. I haven't seen it. My preference would be to see the plans and calculations, and we could all move on. If I don't see them, if I don't get them just through asking, or I was going to ask you all to also ask, If I don't see them through that, I have to either go through an attorney or file and delay things by filing an appeal. So to get to your question, I feel like having a short stay would expedite things overall. Does that answer your question?

It answers my question. Commissioner Lopez has a question.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. So just with respect to the scope of this proposed conversation that we're entertaining the continuance for let's say the 2026 revision permit did not exist or hadn't been submitted yet and was not being considered by the city. Would you still want to continue tonight's hearing? Or is that continuance more focused on what may or may not be in a separate permit that can still be appealed?

The request for the continuance is because I think that we are very close to being done and could finish and get to the finish line. So that's why there's a request for a short continuance. If the 2026 permit did not exist, then DBI would not have done what the board requested DBI to do in October. And so I would be still requesting the original permits to be denied. Did that make sense?

Yeah, that helps. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. You can be seated. We will now hear from the permit holder.

My name is Kathleen Gewirtz. I'm a licensed GC, but I'm actually acting as Stephen's representative. I will give you an update, but I did want to express my strong opposition to the continuance request by Ms. Sastry. Every time we've made any good faith efforts to address her concerns or offer concessions, she continues to move the goalposts. It's become clear, especially as of tonight, that she will never be satisfied. No matter how many professionals review the project, this latest request is just simply another stalling tactic. We've done everything requested by the Board of Appeals and the Building Department. Every independent review has reached the same conclusion that the project is safe, code compliant, and the permits were properly issued. During the last continuous this period, Ms. Sastry has had plenty of communications with the building department. She has continued to misinterpret facts, including her communications with Mr. Chung. Mr. Chung has thoroughly reviewed all structural plans and calculations for the entire project. He's met with our engineering team twice. He met with me today, reviewed the structural plans and calculations. Once again, his professional conclusion is clear. The permits were appropriately issued. The building is safe and compliant with all applicable codes. And his in-depth holistic review that you requested he do is complete. In fact, he was supposed to be writing to Mr. Hospital today. Mr. Hospital reached the same independent conclusion regarding the permit issuance. Ms. Sastry just simply disagrees with these expert findings and is essentially saying that I don't believe the holistic review that Jimmy has conducted. I want to see the structural calculations and drawings. They've already been approved by everyone at the building department per your request. We respectfully ask that you do not reward her continued delay tactics. Granting a continuance under the circumstances would unfairly harm my client and reward bad faith obstruction. We're entering our third year of what should have been a six-month residential remodeling. This remains a straightforward residential remodeling. Nothing has changed. Through all of these reviews, everybody's reached the same conclusion that the building safety has been proven repeatedly.

Thank you. President Tresvino has a question.

Yes, thank you for your presentation. I'll ask you the same question that I just asked Ms. Hashty. What communication did you or your client have about this latest permit?

We've been communicating solely through Mr. Chung. They're in active litigation, Stephen and Samia. And so the whole point of her

But we'll just say your answer is you didn't tell her about the new permit.

We're not planning on conducting any conversations with her. His attorney has said that he should not be in communication with her. And the experts have reviewed.

You've answered my question. There's no communication. What is the purpose of this new permit?

The purpose of this new permit is to have all of their as-built to align all of the existing site conditions with the plan so that everything is in alignment. And all of the structural calculations and plans that Jimmy has reviewed multiple times, including today, speaks to the entire extent of the renovation of the project. And the goodwill gestures that my client has made. I mean, her main concern has always been our first appeal. She said she's been living on toothpicks. The building is safe and sound and structurally sound. It's code compliant. That's been her main issue.

And can you tell me what the purpose of the timing was to have the permit completed and approved prior to our hearing?

It was just through the course of timing through Jimmy. Jimmy met with Samya's engineering team. Then he met with me or our engineering team twice. And then he proposed the dates to us. We just agreed to those dates. When I spoke with Jimmy initially before he had his first meeting with Samya and her engineering team, he said that they were not very responsible. Her engineer was not very responsive. Samia continues to call and email Jimmy Chong.

You're kind of straying from my question. You've answered it. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. You can be seated. Anything further from DBI on the continuation request? OK. So commissioners, you could choose to vote on the continuation request, or you can decide not to entertain it and move on to the cases.

Well, I think it's, given the unique situation we have here, I think it's worth discussing and deliberating amongst the three of us prior to a motion. And I am, I didn't see this coming. I had heard there was a desire for a continuance, but now it is a continuance based upon a new permit. And I don't And it seems to me that the city is saying, and I think everyone is saying, this new permit takes into account everything that was in the existing permit. And to the extent that it changes these permits, I have not been persuaded that the new permit is irrelevant. or even makes the older permits moot. And perhaps it doesn't make them moot, but I'm not sure how we can proceed in terms of using everybody's time effectively. Having a hearing on two permits that we have already been told are subsumed in another permit and how people can make their arguments based on permits that have... We could spend the time talking about permits, but knowing that those permits are now out of date. And I don't think that's a good use of anybody's time. In addition, I think because of the timing that has occurred on this new permit, The permit holder has walked in to a situation where and has handed Ms. Astry a viable request for a rehearing for whatever we do tonight. The rehearing requests come about because of information that wasn't available and could have affected the proceedings of the board. It seems to me that I've asked everybody what's in the permit, how it affects. We don't know because either we haven't talked to Jimmy Chung or we haven't seen the I think we are walking into a situation where there could be at least a viable claim for a re-hearing, whatever we do. So I'm inclined to hear, I certainly want to hear from my colleagues and see whether, as has been expressed, a continuance might be faster than having the hearing tonight making a decision and then finding out we're back here yet again on a re-hearing on permits that are that everyone says is are out of date so i'm frustrated by the the decision about a new permit I don't think it was helpful to our process. And also, it's not helpful when either one party or both parties take the position that we're not communicating. As you've seen on the previous matters, people were at odds. People were very much at odds in the previous two cases that we've heard tonight. Well, at least one in particular. they resolve their matters together. Ideally, that's what would happen. But right now, we're not there. And I'm inclined to grant, at least entertain, my colleagues' thoughts on a continuance. Commissioner Lopez.

I do have one procedural point that I'd like to clarify with Mr. Ospital. I believe you mentioned, Mr. Ospital, that the issuance or the validity of the revision permit depended on these four permits being revived. Is that correct?

No, what I said, or if I didn't say it clearly enough, what I meant to say was the recommencement of these four permits, if the 2026 permit is deemed approved and issued, which it has been today, the appellant, because the other permits are not recommenced and have been suspended, Work still can't happen. The work on the property can't go on. But what I could do is, if this will clarify anything for the board, the permit that was issued today What it does is it references two permits, 2025-0626-9586 and 2024-0517-2393, as built to reflect and align site condition with architectural and structural plans. And yes, that was approved yesterday by Jimmy Chung. So that's the scope of the 2026 permit. Again, what's happening with the appeals tonight is just the recommencements of permits that aren't tied to this permit, as far as I could tell. But they're tied to the permit because it's part of the same project, but those permits had never gone through the appeal process. So what the appellant is appealing is the recommencement of the two permits that never went through the appeal process. So I don't know if that answered your question. You know, this is what I'm looking at online with the description of the current permit that was issued today by Jimmy. And I know Jimmy's looked at this project for quite some time and has been in discussion with Somia for at least the last, since the last hearing.

Thank you. I guess to my fellow commissioners, I would say I hadn't been focused on the rehearing angle that President Tresviña surfaced. And I think that's a really good point. Because of that, I would probably support a continuance just to cut down on the potential further avenues, which I think would be potentially pretty rational to appeal any decision that could come out of tonight when we have just wrapped up in a box unknown facts that we can't consider in tonight's discussion. But I would push for a very quick hearing so that the continuance, ideally, I know we have a meeting a week from tonight, another on the 25th. I would push for this to be heard in one of those dates.

Last question is for Ryan.

I was hoping we might hear these matters tonight because We've seen a lot of you, and I appreciate your time, but I think given the somewhat, I'll acknowledge, surprise request for continuance, and I understand the basis of it, and I'm sorry that that's the case, because We've spent a lot of time together, and I was looking forward to having some resolution here. But I think in the best interest of the parties, and I have sympathy for those of you who have been waiting, I would also be inclined to support a continuance of And I might also request, if at all possible, at the next hearing, that maybe perhaps Mr. Chung might be able to join us for a fully informed analysis and questions. Because I feel that every time we hear this matter, I have more questions, and my questions are not answered satisfactorily because these permits, there are so many of them, and they're so complex. So I would be inclined to move for a very short continuance with a special request that Mr. Chung join us, if at all possible, for that hearing.

I fully support the sentiments expressed by you, Vice President Soroyan. I think we have been inadvertently, perhaps, we have been put in a situation where that appears to be the only proper course forward for as quick a resolution of this as possible. So I support having this matter heard as soon as possible. I take Ms. Astrea at her word that she will review it and we will have a substantive, hopefully final discussion on this matter. I would encourage consistent with whatever lawyers you have, say communication on this matter so that we don't have to have just a wall between the parties so that it will help us. resolve this matter quickly, which I know is everybody's desire. Finally, I would add to the motion a request to either the city attorney or DBI on the question of whether a recommenced permit can have the benefit of the earlier inspection that has expired or whether the language in the ordinance that an expired permit is null and void applies to the inspections related to that expired permit. That to me is a critical issue on the underlying issues of the recommence versus recommencing of the permits.

Okay. I'd like to call for public comment. Is there any public comment? Okay. I don't see any. So commissioners, did you want to, is there a motion?

I believe Commissioner Saroyan made a motion, but perhaps it could be.

We need to clarify the date. And if you could clarify the parties, the purpose of the motion as well, the purpose of the continuance, just so everyone's clear. And when we come back, we could put it on. We had some cases move off the next two calendars. We could put it on next week. I don't know if that's enough time, March 11th. And I don't know if Jimmy Chung is available. Okay, or March 25th.

I would suggest that I make a motion to continue this matter to the earliest date possible for all the parties with a special invitation to Mr. Chung with DBI. And that would either be March 11 or March 25.

Are you available March 11? March 11? OK, hopefully. And the purpose is so that the appellant can review Jimmy Chung's work and the analysis?

Well, all the parties, I think all the parties, can review the permit. review the new permit? The new permit to make sure it is consistent with the underlying permits.

I'm sorry, can you come up to the microphone, please?

his review, and he has deemed that everything has been appropriately issued. The building is safe. All the building codes have been met. Why isn't it satisfactory for Ms. Sastry to just accept his findings and his rulings along with Mr. Hospitals? We're not required to share our plans and calculations. You've asked us to vet it through the building department, which we have done three times. four times with including them. I don't see the purpose of why we have to have a meeting with Samia.

Sorry, we can't really respond to you because we're in a deliberation right now. But what I will tell you is that I think what Ms. Sastry is asking for is a continuance so that If she desires to appeal that permit, we can deal with all of the appeals together at once rather than piecemealing them.

Right, but we finished what she requested. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you.

I mean, from my understanding, the permit that was issued today, the commissioners want to determine if it has an impact on the permits that are before us today. That's correct. So that's the purpose. And if you feel comfortable that it does not, then you will make a decision. We don't have enough back. 11th on those permits. And she is probably going to appeal the permit that was issued today. And she will have an opportunity then to review the plans and address her concerns.

Hence why we don't speak to her. So I think the board would like more information. And we do not feel that we have sufficient facts to hear the matter this evening. based on the fact that another permit that we haven't seen was issued today by DBI.

So the board wants to, the purpose of the continuation was so that the parties and the board can learn about the impact of the permit that was issued today the impact of that permit on the permits that are currently before the board, the subjects of the current appeals.

Okay, so on... And would like an opinion from either the city attorney or DBI regarding the inspection.

Okay. Okay, from both or from the city attorney and DBI? Okay.

I'm happy to getting it from the city attorney.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. So on that motion to continue this matter to March 11th, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

President Trasvina? Aye. So that motion carries 3-0. And we will see you next week. And are you expecting anything in writing? President Chesvena? Just except the city attorney will give us advice, but this is just giving you, the parties will be reporting back to you on the impact to us on the impact of the new permit?

In order for us to be fully prepared, it would help to have up to three pages from each party.

Okay, they may be submitted late because we post all the materials on Friday, the day after tomorrow, so...

They can be submitted any time prior to the day of the hearing.

Okay. Up until... Fine. Okay. Thank you. So we will see you next week, in one week. Thank you. And you can submit a three-page double-spaced brief on this continuance and on the plans, the new permit. But for clarity, the new permit is not the subject of the appeal. Thank you.

That's correct. Thank you all. And I've had a request to take a 10-minute break.

Thank you. Thank you.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.

OK, welcome back to the March 4th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. We are now on item number seven. This is appeal number 26-004, Gregory Wesolowski versus Department Building Inspection, Planning Department Approval, Subject Property, 45 Prospect Avenue, appealing the issuance on January 13, 2026 to Mark Sherry of an alteration permit, remodel existing kitchen and bathroom, Add new bathroom and master bathroom. Add three new dormers and convert attic into habitable space. New foundation. This is permit number 2022, 1228, 9265. And we'll hear from the appellant first. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

Thank you. So my name is Greg Wesolowski. I'm co-owner of 43 Prospect, along with Kristen Gertella, who's on the Zoom meeting today. So I just want to thank the board for the opportunity to present here. I also want to thank the permit holders. We've worked constructively over the past few weeks to resolve much of what I'm about to discuss today. So I'll just dive right into it. So just a bit of the property background. Here's a street view and just showing the front facade of the houses and where the approximate property line resides. And then I think this next photo is taken from 43 Prospect Avenue looking towards the street. I think the key thing here to denote is that the retaining wall and foundation on 43 Prospect is offset from the property line. Now, the photo on the left is another view, a visual of the foundation wall, kind of relative to the front facade of the house. And the photo on the right is a view of the retaining wall looking through the garage of 45 Prospect Avenue. So I think the key thing to kind of call out here is that currently it's effectively a void. I think there's no earth that... that sits up on the retaining wall. And also that front facade on the left photo isn't a retaining wall. So I think the concern that we had when we heard about the construction project is making sure that there was no fill up against that front wall since it is just a wall just for siding. So just kind of going through a bit of the background for the appeal. We're very much supportive of the Permit Holders Project. We're happy that they're doing the renovation. And we just wanted to make sure consideration was made for this unique kind of property line layout. We heard about the intent to submit a permit application from a letter from the permit holders in 2024. And then we asked what kind of work was happening on the property line. We followed up in March 2025. We asked again about what scope of work was happening, and then we received a notice from the city that a permit was issued in 2026, and then we still weren't aware of the scope of work. So that's when I went down to the Records Management Division to review the plans, and then I noted some encroachment that I'll talk about in the next slide. And then I requested to meet kind of before the filing deadline, but I think we weren't able to, so the appeal was filed. So the reason for the appeal was that there was fill added to our property on 43 Prospect Avenue. That's the first one, kind of the main one. Two, there was drainage placed over the property line. And then three, a footing that extended into the property. I want to thank the permit holders and their architect for meeting on February 22nd. And at that time, we all agreed to proceed with a revision to the plans to move all the work within the property line boundaries. And then yesterday, there was an updated plan, I think that was shared with everybody, that kind of covered the concerns raised in the initial brief. However, during the meeting and in the permit holder's brief that was submitted, there were two additional concerns that were raised. One was about house color to denote property boundaries and the second was separation requirements for a house lift needing to occur during the construction process. So regarding house color, we're happy to provide access for repainting when requested. And I just want to put in a note for the record that we have not repainted either building. The house colors are unchanged since we purchased the property in 2021. Before I go to the next slide, I just want to point out that our building on 43 Prospect does jut out and abuts the neighboring property at 45 Prospect. So I think the next slide kind of gets into some of the concern around the house lift that we learned about in our meeting. I think what was brought up is that there was a concern about our building at 43 Prospect being structurally reliant on the building on 45 Prospect. I think we don't know this. I did kind of an initial look to see where I kind of peeled back some of the trim and it looks like there is a small gap. There is siding on our property that, or on our building that kind of faces 45, and it looks like there's a large concrete foundation, but I'm not a structural engineer, so I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not. I think what feedback I'm looking for from the board here is whose responsibility is it to kind of Maintain the structural integrity of the neighboring property when construction is occurring on another property I think I was looking at San Francisco building code section 3307 and it noted like protection for adjoining properties when construction was occurring And then like after construction you know to building plans need to address like water ingress, you know between the gap in buildings that inevitably will occur during a separation. So the request for resolution is to suspend the permit until updated plans regarding the following are clear. So for the encroachment, I think those updated plans address those concerns. So we have no concerns there.

30 seconds.

And then just some clarity around building responsibility, building separation responsibilities, like during and after construction, and if there's any modifications in the plans that need to reflect this. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from President Tresevino.

Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the work that you and your neighbors have done to address a lot of issues, to communicate, and to come to what appear to be reasonable and legally compliant code compliant solutions. I'm wondering what it is that we can do for you other than send you on your way. It seems like you've achieved what you need and you can withdraw your appeal, but I wanted to know what else is there before us.

Yes. Right now, on the screen that I'm sharing, there's currently a seal between our flat roof and the siding of the neighboring property. And then currently, that doesn't allow water ingress between those two buildings. So during a move, those will be separated. But I'm wondering, I don't know, is there a requirement after construction to do Building plans need to include that, not reconnection or waterproofness, for lack of a better word, between the two buildings. And do building plans need to incorporate that into it?

Thank you. I think that's a matter for the experts in the city departments rather than as a legal matter for us to give you advice on. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice President Soroyan?

My question is, have you had a chance to review the plans that were recently submitted, and do they meet your requirements outside of the ceiling issue?

Yes, they do.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. You can be seated. We will now hear from the permit holders.

Good evening, members of the board. My name is Mark Sherry, and I'm one of the owners of 45 Prospect. Our original permitted plans did contain an unintentional intrusion into our neighbor's property, a four-inch on the base of our footing spilling over onto the property line. We believe that this error occurred when we switched structural engineers during the process, and the new team followed what they believed to be standard best practices for the stability of both homes. During this process, we missed the fact that these structural suggestions didn't fully align with our original architectural drawings. Although they proposed these shared systems for the benefit of both properties, we recognize that we should have vetted those plans more strictly against the property line before submittal, and we take full responsibility for that error. And we took action to correct this error the minute it was brought to our attention. In advance of this hearing, as mentioned, on February 22nd, we met with our neighbors, Mr. Weseslawski and Ms. Critella, at their home. We brought our architect, Sean Mehra, and our designer, Gordana Pavlovich, with us so we could look at the site together and hear their concerns firsthand. This meeting was productive. We apologized for the error. We listened to their preferences and agreed on a total physical separation between our two properties. After the meeting, we asked our architect and engineers to redesign our project so that every single element of our foundation and drainage is contained 100% within our own property line. These revisions have already been completed and submitted to DBI and this board for review. They include zero encroachment footings and independent drainage. This ensures that 43 Prospect will have no reliance on our infrastructure and will have no impact on theirs. We believe these changes will satisfy the appellant's concerns around their property line integrity while still allowing our building to get the structurally sound, code-compliant foundation that it currently lacks. We've acted in good faith to correct our mistake, and we're committed to seeing these revisions through to formal approval and completion. We want to be good neighbors, and we want to build this project the right way. We respectfully request that the board allow us to move forward with these corrected, compliant plans so we can complete this project safely and professionally. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Vice President Soroyan? I apologize.

I want to commend you both for working together. There may be a few wrinkles, but this is what we love to see. And it's nice to hear that you're committed to working together and being good neighbors. So thank you for your joint effort. We really appreciate it. Of course.

OK. President Tresevino?

Vice President Soroyan expressed better than I could my sentiments as well. Thank you both.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We will now hear from the planning department. Anything? Okay. We'll hear from DBI. Thank you.

Good evening, campus shooters.

I think my brief is... kind of moot at this point, because my brief did state that after I reviewed the drawings in question, the structural drawings did not match the architectural drawings. And in the structural set, it showed a four-inch encroachment plus fill plus drainage, whereas in the architectural portion of the drawings, it did not. And I don't think there was clear communication between the architect and the structural engineer when those plans were submitted. And unfortunately, our engineer at DBI did miss that one detail. So the original permit was approved in error. But they've provided a set of drawings that I reviewed yesterday. The drawings are completely code compliant. And my recommendation to the board would be to uphold the appeal with the instructions that a revision special conditions permit be issued with the new drawings that are completely code compliant. I'm available for any questions.

OK. We have a question from Commissioner Lopez.

That all makes sense to me. Thank you for that. I was just wondering if you could speak to any of the requests for guidance that the appellant made with respect to resealing the exposed opening that would follow this connection.

With the roofing and stuff? The code prohibits buildings from being structurally connected. In my interpretation of that, you see many roofs in San Francisco because the buildings are built so close together where they share a common roof cap that doesn't allow water to intrude in between the buildings. Or you'll see the roofing rolled up and then attached to the building. In my view, that's not a structural connection. You should get your neighbor's permission, I don't think it's something that's in violation of the code because, again, it's not a structural connection. As regarding the bathroom wall issue, I had a conversation with both the appellant and the permit holders because I was contacted by the permit holder and I was contacted by the appellant's architect. And there may be a question that the appellant's bathroom wall is structurally connected to the permit holder permit holder's building. And basically, I told him, well, because I know about it and I'm with DBI, I've got to send an inspector out there. And they may issue a notice of violation. But I've instructed him on how he can resolve that without getting into trouble over it. I mean, it should be very simple. It's when you sit on a notice of violation and don't do anything about it that you get into trouble over it. And he was looking for guidance on that. And I said, I'll send a building inspector out there. He can look at it and he can tell you what the process is going forward. But other than that, it seems to me that both the appellant and the permit holders worked fantastically together. They solved their issues. And again, my recommendation or DBI's recommendation is that the appeal be granted with the caveat that the special conditions permit show all the changes that were submitted yesterday. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. I don't see any questions. So we're going to move on to public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any public comment. So we're going to move on to, you have rebuttal time. Would you like to address the board further? No? OK. Anything further from the department? No. Mr. Ospital, nothing further? OK. So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Again, thank you all for your presentations and the work that you've done to bring us to this point. Echoing Mr. Ospital, pending my colleague seeking recognition, I would move to grant the appeal with the issuance of a special conditions permit consistent with the new drawings.

Okay.

on the grounds that the revisions make it code compliant.

Okay. I'll just put a little more specificity, if you don't mind, related to the date of the plans. Grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans dated February 27, 2026, that were submitted for the hearing on March 4, 2026. This motion was made on the basis that the plans are code compliant. Okay. On that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Okay. And then do the parties want to waive their right to a rehearing for the record, and that way we can get the decision out tomorrow? Okay. I see everyone saying yes. So we'll send the decision out tomorrow, and then we can coordinate about the process for getting a special conditions permit.

There are a few more steps.

So thank you so much for your patience as well.

Thank you. There being no further business before the board, we stand adjourned until next week.

Okay. Thank you.