Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening and welcome to the May 27, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Truskvenia will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, Commissioner Robin Abbott, and Commissioner Lily Wong. 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 a representative from the city department that will be presenting before the board this evening. Up front, we have Corey Teague, the zoning administrator. 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. 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 the seven or three minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Four 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 livestream 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 access via Zoom, 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, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 93730637434. And 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 three minutes, one to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and 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's very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there's interference at 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 Al Clonway, 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 will 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. And I see Ms. Shudish is here. Welcome.

Well, it's not on the calendar because it was taken off, so I can speak about it, correct? Correct. Hi, I'm Georgia Shudish. I'm here about the Valley Street thing. I want to get the overhead first set up, please.

Overhead, please.

OK, good, perfect. Thank you. OK, so I just want to explain what I wrote and why I still think that the paperwork in that matter needs to be cleared up. So here on the left is the lot, cleared. There's nothing there. Here's the house as it was, 248 Valley. Here's the wall that was supposed to be partially retained by 40%. As you can see, here's the elevation for the west side. The white area is what was supposed to remain. There's a whole demo calx, and then here I blew it up, and it's tantamount to demolition. They were all 100, but the vertical was 88. So what's my point? My point was the point that the appellant had, and it was the wrong application was filed. Tantamount to demolition. Is tantamount to demolition? Is it demolition? Here is the permit application that the thing got. It's form three. It should have gotten form six. Form three doesn't have much information. Form six, which is this, says demolition of a single family home. Application for demolition of a single family home. If it got in form six, it would have had to get form two, because they go together. They go in tandem. Form two, application for building permit. Two units. Where does it say that? Somewhere. Right there. Two family. So that's the whole problem in a nutshell. Why DBI does not allow people to get a demolition permit and a building permit when it's a tantamount to demolition, I don't understand. It makes no sense. When you read 317, it has the definitions of demolition. It's either It's now, well, it's been changed. The tantamount to demolition has been changed. But when this was done, this project exceeded them. So that's my whole point. I think, too, if they'd gotten the demolition permit, there would have been better oversight of the House. And maybe the appellant, no longer the appellant, wouldn't have had the issues that he had. So I don't know. I just think that's an issue.

So that's my point. I mean, I don't see how...

Maybe they should have gotten a violation. They didn't keep the wall. But I don't see how you can say that's not a demolition when this is what was there, and that was supposed to be retained, and this is gone. That's where it was supposed to be, by the White House.

That's the end of my time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any further general public comment? I don't see any on Zoom. So we'll move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. As the speaker alluded, we had another item on the agenda. It is no longer on the agenda. So for those of you who are here, you have our undivided attention. And I can assure you that my colleagues and I have read the 332 pages of materials that you have submitted, and we are ready to hear your matter. I just wanted to welcome you all to the Board of Appeals. Colleagues, anything to add?

Okay, is there any public comment on this item I Don't see any so we're gonna move on to item number three the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the May 20th 2026 meeting I'm moving to adopt the May 20 26 minutes Okay, is there any public comment on that motion? I don't see any so on that motion Commissioner Lopez Vice President Soraya I I Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. That motion carries 5 to 0, and the minutes are adopted. We are now, I would just like to announce for the record regarding items 4A, 4B, and 4C. Those are appeal number 26-022, 26-023, and 26-025 at 248 Valley Street. After a review of the record, a determination was made that the Board of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear these appeals. THE PERMITS THAT WERE APPEALED ARE POST-ENTITLEMENT PHASE PERMITS FOR THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPROVED UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION NUMBER 21448 AND THIS IS 2022-008784 CUA AND BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 2022-1223-9051 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLING UNITS AND THEREFORE are not subject to appeal under government code section 65913.3c3. The appeals have been administratively dismissed pursuant to Article 5, Section 11 of the Rules of the Board of Appeals. So they will not be heard. So I just wanted to state that for the record. We are now moving on to item number five. This is appeal number 26-021, Daryl and Celeste Wu, Taylor and Julia Moore, Susan Kronholm, Catherine Skangos, Jeff Willis, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ADDITION TO VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING, DEMOLISH AND REPLACE BUILDING, DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE REAR DECK IN KIND AND ADD A NEW THE REAR DECK IN KIND AND ADD A NEW ROOF DECK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER ROOF DECK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE THIRD STORY. OF THE THIRD STORY. THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A The proposed building expansion will extend six feet four inches into the required rear yard. The zoning administrator granted a rear yard variance with conditions. This is case number 2015-013369. And as a preliminary matter, Commissioner Wong has a disclosure to make.

I'm disclosing for the record that I sit on the Planning Department's Community Equity Advisory Council, which advises the department staff on strategies to engage diverse communities. I do not believe that this will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Okay. Thank you. So we will now hear from the appellants. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

Good evening. I'm Darryl Wu. And in light of the time limitations for our side, I am speaking on behalf of all the appellants, although many of them are here in the hearing room with me. I just want to highlight a few things to address the opposition papers and add, if I can, any remaining time to my rebuttal time. The variance granted below is the product of improper post-hearing ex parte communications between the applicant's counsel and the zoning administrator. Both dismissed the communications as business as usual. Having them is common, they said. But just because they do it all the time does not make it any less a violation of government code section 11430.10 or any less a violation of due process. That section provides, and I quote, while the proceeding is pending, there shall be no communication, direct or indirect, regarding any issue in the proceeding to the presiding officer from an employee or representative of an agency, that is a party, or from an interested person outside the agency without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication, unquote. There is no exception under that section for zoning variance hearings. The undisputed facts show that the zoning administrator acting as presiding officer took the matter under advisement at the conclusion of the hearing on December 3rd, 2025. In other words, it was still pending. The subsequent record shows that the administrator was inclined to deny the variance because, as submitted, the plan did not address the objections raised in connection with the hearing. Without any notice or opportunity to be heard, the Queens Council contacted the zoning administrator ex parte in February of 2026 with revised plans that became the basis for the decision that issued on April 6, 2026. This was without notice or opportunity to be heard in violation of the section of the government code that I just quoted. And it's a denial of due process under both the California and United States constitutions. That the revision reduced the size of the project and modified it to try to address privacy concerns is not the point. The proper course was to deny the variance, not let the Quays Council have one-sided communications designed to talk the zoning administrator into granting it based on revisions that we never had the opportunity to address. And those revised plans still did not address our objections because the zoning administrator admitted in his written decision that the revised plans only slightly reduced depth and height and reduce but not eliminate the number of western-facing windows that would look directly onto the Willis' property, the property next door, and into their daughter's bedroom, to be exact. Contrary to opposing counsel's argument, privacy is not a matter of whether the quees are peeping Toms. No one is accusing them of that. I want to be clear on that. They're good neighbors. But privacy is about the feeling imparted to the persons whose privacy is being invaded. Even if no one is looking, No one wants more windows looking into their daughter's bedroom, especially when due to their height of the windows, someone could observe from above without even being seen. Another point we want to emphasize is that the quiz failed to show lack of material injury to the surrounding properties. The undisputed evidence is that the added story will cast shadows and diminish the privacy of neighboring properties. Even the new light studies submitted by the Quays for the first time in this appeal, Exhibit G, show that the proposed revised structure will cast new shadows onto the surrounding properties. And I direct the board's attention to pages 135, 141, and 42 of the PDF, Exhibit G, to the Quays brief. The Cui's response is that, oh, well, we live in a dense urban environment where reduced privacy, light, and air is to be expected. But that expectation does not justify materially diminishing existing rights. As authority, they refer to the residential design guidelines, but left out other portions They selectively cited portions that say that some reductions are to be expected, but left out other portions stating that, quote, when expanding a building into the rear yard, the impact of that expansion on light and privacy for abutting structures must be considered. And that's Exhibit E, page 44 of the PDF, page 16 of the residential design guidelines. They go on to recommend some ways to address these situations, as the guidelines do, but nowhere do they say neighbors just have to live with the consequences of an addition that without a variance would violate rear yard space requirements. The guidelines are just that. They're guidelines. They don't give carte blanche to building a towering addition at the expense of neighbors. They further recognize that there may be special situations where a proposed project will have an unusual impact on privacy to neighboring interior living spaces. We have shown that ours is just such a situation where the added story will materially impact neighboring living space. As for the alleged hardship, the Quays are not being deprived of privileges. had by surrounding properties with the same zoning. None of those properties have existing third stories. The QIES cite two instances where nearby houses were granted variances, but those properties were located on northern ends of their blocks, where the additions could not cast shadows on neighbors' properties to the north because there's a street in between. Instead, the variance will provide the QIES with special privileges contrary to government code 69506. The Queez project sat dormant for nearly a decade, during which they could have acted by moving in aging parents, but they did nothing. And you don't have to build a taller building to accommodate the aged while adding no more bedrooms to the already large five bedroom property. The permit expired. Nearly expired multiple times. They didn't pay the fees needed to keep the prior variance from expiring. And all of this points to a new motivation to obtain a transferable development entitlement rather than solve a unique hardship tied to the property's rear yard limitations. 30 seconds. The variance should never have been granted. I reserve the remaining time for rebuttal. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. We have a question from President Trusvino, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Wu. A couple of questions related to the privacy issue.

Yes.

Can you describe what the current, so you're complaining about the plans compromising a privacy based upon the deck. Can you describe what the current Capacity or ability of the neighbors to view the windows that you're talking about?

Well, there are windows on that side, but they're at the same level. The proposal would put a third story structure, which is able to look down into the bedroom of Mr. Willis's daughter.

So maybe Mr. Willis might be better able to answer my question, which is, what is the current level of privacy concern with the current structures being on the same level?

Thank you. Currently, there's Two adjacent windows. We have shades. The Cleaves are good neighbors, so we don't have any particular concerns. The concern was more around the third story looking down.

OK. So as I heard you, you acknowledged the good neighbor relationship. I don't want to put words in your mouth. That's what I thought you just said. Yes. So in the existing floor-to-floor, you have ways to deal with privacy.

Right now, there are ways to deal with privacy.

Right. So why would the elevated floor create more problems for privacy?

The issue is that we don't know. Right now, we see directly across. If there's an elevated floor, we won't be able to see what's coming above and looking down on us. So it's the unknown that we're concerned about.

Right now, they can see into your windows, you can see into theirs. Whether you do or not is not the issue, but you can.

Yes, there is it.

And the additional floor would allow that additional floor's occupants to be able to look in. Maybe they're the same people, maybe they aren't. Then you would continue to be able to look across. Right.

You couldn't practically look upwards.

No, I realize you can't. I'm not talking about looking upwards. But right now, there are, well, I think you've answered what I want to know, which is there is current ability to view each other's premises and the addition would allow an additional ability unresponded to. And it's asymmetrical. That addresses part of my question on privacy. The second is whether you had the opportunity to raise privacy issues at the Planning Commission or earlier than this.

We did raise those concerns at the Planning Commission.

Okay, great. And my third question is, does the new plan, the plan that you object to as being the product of ex parte communications, does that create more privacy or less privacy issues, fewer privacy issues?

probably provides fewer because they did cut back some, but not all. And the point is we were still deprived of the opportunity to be heard in violation of due process and 11.430.10.

Are there other harms that you can express to us by your not being given the opportunity to address the new CHANGES.

WE HAVEN'T HAD OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT WOULD ADDRESS AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, IF YOU WILL, THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE LIGHT CONCERNS. THIS IS ALL DONE OUTSIDE OUR PRESENCE IN EX PART A COMMUNICATIONS.

RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I WANT TO KNOW, SO YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM ACTUALLY TO BE MUCH OF A DISPUTE. of those conversations. My question is, you've established, you've stated a harm of impingement on privacy. Are there other harms that you're not being provided an opportunity to address those changes are involved here?

Well, if we had timely disclosure, we could have hired our own light study and presented that in opposition. Instead, the zoning administrator received only a one-sided one, where the Quays Council provided ex parte view of things in the light most favorable to them, if you'll excuse the pun.

So you're saying there's privacy, there's a shadow study, that you didn't have the opportunity to rebut or improve upon any other issues?

I think that that is pretty much it. But the violation of due process is one of constitutional dimension.

Thank you. Vice President Soroyan has a question.

Mr. Chaput? I'm sorry, how do you pronounce it? Willis. Willis, sorry. Mr. Willis, did you have a chance to take some pictures so we could actually see what the bedroom looks like so that we can see? I've seen a lot of renderings, but I would love a visual. So do you have a picture?

Yeah, we do have a picture that we submitted at the last hearing.

You could bring it up if you could show us. That would be helpful.

It's part of the record, and we don't have a copy of it with us.

I was told that the board already would have copies of all our submissions.

I understand that, but there were 330 pages, so I'm not able to zero in on what was the photograph.

Apologies. I can see if it's on my phone.

Or maybe, Alex, if you know what page it is, you could pull it up.

Did you submit it in conjunction with this appeal?

Yes.

OK, then we have it. We can find it.

OK. And in the meantime, it seems like you're friendly with your neighbors. Did you have a chance to maybe go and try to knock on their door and express some of your concerns about the new revised plans? We oftentimes find that matters between neighbors if the relations are good to have a chance to express some concerns outside of council.

Right. I think that's part of the issue here where a lot of the revisions have not been notified. So it's always going to come to a surprise where we get an email saying this is happening without any friendly information from the quiz in terms of what they're planning on doing. So we keep on hearing these things that are a surprise to us. And then, yes. Thank you.

But did you have the opportunity to maybe knock on their door and say, I'm concerned about my daughter's privacy, or is it beyond that?

I think that's something we expressed during the last hearing. So after we expressed during the last hearing, I think that was evident. But to answer your question, we did not have a direct conversation with the police.

So the view from your daughter's bedroom from sons. OK. Are your children's bedrooms next to each other?

My child and the Queez children?

No, it says there's a view from daughter's bedroom, view from son's bedroom. I see a picture.

A son room. So there's a son room and then there's my daughter.

Oh, it says son as in S-O-N, son.

I don't have any sons, so I think it must have been a transcription error. There's a sunroom and a bedroom.

Maybe Alex can find it. Do you have the page number?

It looks like page 64. 64 of the PDF, I believe.

Okay, we can show it. Yeah, that'd be great.

Yeah, I'll also point out that we did have a meeting at the Morris House with the Quees on and expressed our privacy concerns to them in October of 2025. So we've had a chance to talk it over, but they persisted anyway.

Okay, thank you. Are you trying to show it on Zoom, Alec?

I'm just trying to get it on here.

Overhead, please.

OK, that looks good. Maybe.

That is not.

Maybe zoom out a little. A little bit more.

That's a different house.

That's not the picture you want to show?

There are also pictures on page 68 of 332.

That looks good. So do you have a question about that, Vice President Stroyan?

Yes. About how many feet is that?

All across?

Yes.

Yeah, from our house to the police house, it's probably a good 10 feet, I would say.

It's about 10 feet. Yeah. Okay. And I'm not trying to be, does she have window coverings on her windows?

Yeah, she does have window coverings. She's a teenager and I think she- Sure.

Yeah. Okay. So 10 feet. Okay. Thank you so much.

Wait, are you asking about the windows or are you asking about how far we are away from the Quease House?

Well, I asked two questions. My first question was what is the distance from your home to what you're

expecting 10 feet.

And then my other second question was, does she have window coverings? Because, yes. Thank you.

Thanks. We have a question from Commissioner Wong and then Commissioner Bodden.

Yeah, so you actually asked my question about the window coverings because could not see that in the photos I think my other question for y'all is Regarding the concessions. I know that when I was in the public forum you guys were able to talk I think that there's been some concessions on the other side about How the design goes Is there any other concessions other than just revoking the permit that you would want to see?

We think revoking the permit, the variance, is the appropriate remedy. But if there are other concessions to be had, it seems to address Mr. Willis' concern if they would have no windows on the added third story. They still have them in the proposed plans.

Okay, so your concern, just restating, one of your concerns is the windows being able to look into your second-story home.

Yeah, that's one of our concerns around there. It's the air, the light, and then the privacy. And if it's a teenager daughter, she wants her. That's one thing that she really cares about.

Living in a house and having to keep your windows closed all the time is not the greatest concern. And as you saw from the pictures, you know, that blue sky that you saw would be obliterated by the third story. Even if there were no windows, it would still block the light and the sun and the sky.

Okay. So then that's the second part is the privacy and then the shadows or like the lack of clear blue skies on the rare sunny San Francisco day.

And the light study that I've seen doesn't prove to me that there won't be any impact to our light and air that we currently enjoy. So it would be a significant impact on that. Okay.

Got it. Thank you. A question from Commissioner Bott?

Thank you. Good evening. I'm looking at plans dated October 29th, 2025. And I think these must have been the ones that were at the variance hearing because they predate the December hearing. And in particular, I'm looking at the west facade. I think that's the facade of the subject property that faces yours. Mr. Wallace, is that right? OK. I'm seeing a couple of things, one on sheet A1.5, which is the existing elevation. And if Mr. Longway would be so kind as to pull up, I think that is page of this massive brief. It is page... Existing west elevation is page 17 of 332. I'm showing that there are five window openings on the second floor that face west, so face you as the neighbor. The proposed elevation on the plans dated October 29, 2025, which is on sheet A3.1, show that there are actually fewer windows. There are now four. So I'm also noticing where windows are placed relative to the facade of your own house. And it looks like at least one of those actually looks out into the front yard. into your front yard and not against the building. So I'm sensitive to, I live in San Francisco, too. Our houses are very close together. It does seem, in a way, that there's potentially a reduction of the number of window apertures on the Western facade of the approved proposed plans to your house. Does that conform with your understanding of the changed proposed condition? Thank you all.

If I can see some pictures, that'll be helpful. Please. Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you.

So not counting the window at the, this is the elevation in the upper one, the west elevation, this is the existing condition, not counting the window that's in the bay that faces, that addresses the street, the front yard, I see, I count one, two, three, four, five openings on the second floor. And if we scroll down a little bit to shape A3.1, which is, let's see here, I think it is, Okay, Alec, it is page 24 of 332. And it's sheet A3.1. So I'm counting, now there's three windows on the second floor, and then there's one window on the upper floor. So four windows in the new condition. Can you help us understand where you think the specific kind of diminishment or impingement on privacy arises from?

Yeah, it's the top floor. And I'm not sure what they're planning on doing on top of the third floor as well, if there's going to be access to the rooftop there. But it's that third story window that is of concern.

Okay.

And so... And it's also that massive third story that will take, as you saw, the air and the space, that will take up a lot of our view that we're enjoying right now.

Understood. Okay. So the concern is with that upper, the window in that upper story. The brief also makes mention of the fact that, and this will be a question for the zoning administrator when he comes up, but maybe you have an idea as well that the plans changed from having a gabled or a hipped roof on that third story to something that was flat as to try and minimize the, you know, the shadow impact. And so were you, were your parties at all involved in kind of making or suggesting that decision or arriving at this version? Okay. We were not. How do you regard the decision on the part of the design team to eliminate a pitched or gabled roof in order to flatten it and create more access to light and air?

I think that minimally addresses the issue. Because if you look at the picture there, that third story is a good third of their house elevation. And then if you look at the pictures that are in the exhibit, they'll massively impact the light, air that we enjoy. And then the concerns of around that third window where we won't be able to look up and see what's really happening there, too Thank you, that's all for now for me.

Thank you vice president Royan has a question My question is actually for the city attorney.

I think I don't have any more questions for you. Thanks so much Mr. Minardi, as a point of clarification, there's been some discussion around government code section, California state government code 11430.10 regarding ex-party communications. Could you enlighten us a little bit? Does that apply to the board? Does it apply to the planning department? Do we have our own statutes governing that?

Well, what I can tell you, Vice President, is that that chapter of the government code is pretty clear in section 11410.10 that it applies to an evidentiary hearing. It also later in, it looks like 11410.30 says the chapter does not apply to a local agency except to the extent the provisions are made applicable by statute. I'm not aware of a statute that makes it applicable, but the zoning administrator might have a sense as to whether it's applicable or not Thank you And one actually additional point, which I was reminded of, which is a good point, which is this is a de novo hearing. So the board is looking at this again as sort of the whole underlying hearing based on the facts and sort of stepping into the shoes of the zoning administrator. So you can make that determination based on the facts in front of you.

which is consistent with variance here, variance appeals. Yes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will now hear from the variance holders. Welcome. You have seven minutes.

Not yet, thank you. Yeah, I will indicate that. That's OK. All right. Thank you. Good evening, President Tresvigna, members of the board. I'm Tom Tunney, counsel for Fiona and Richard Cui. With the queezer here, as is our architect, Mark English, Corey Akers. As stated, this is 2840 Lake Street. This is the RH1D zoning district, 40-foot height limit. Excuse me. Our presentation consists of three parts. I'd like to talk a little bit about the procedural background, then the physical setting of the property and the neighborhoods, And then I'll turn to the variance findings. First, procedurally, as has been stated, this project was approved, originally approved in 2017. It's the same project. The neighbors' homes are the same as at that time. The variance was approved. after changes were made by the neighbors, by the QEES on behalf of the neighbors. And based on those changes, the neighbors did not appeal the variance. There was a discretionary review request filed as well, and that was withdrawn. The Cuis then processed their building permit. The approvals were late 2017. A little over two years later, COVID hit. The Cuis kept processing their permit. They got the building permit approved, but not issued. They weren't aware that they needed it issued in order to keep the variants valid. They're not developers. So they turned to pull the permit and start the project, and we're surprised to find out that the variance had expired. They started the process again. They thought everything would be OK because of the process they'd been through before. The board members asked about meetings between the neighbors. There were a number of meetings and discussions and proposals to try to address neighbors' concerns But the process had to start again. There was another neighborhood meeting, and frankly the Quees were surprised at the level of opposition now with the new application. Project, again, had not changed at all. The variance was processed and variance hearing scheduled. The neighbors raised the concerns they are now at that hearing. And it was after the hearing that staff initiated communication with us to request additional changes to address the neighbors' concerns. which we made. The Crees were willing to do that. It's been at some cost to them, frankly. They lose space and they lose programming, but they were willing to do it. So again, surprised again that the appeal was filed. Those revised plans were submitted to the neighbors before the variance approval based on the revised plans was granted. Let's now turn to the physical setting of the property and the neighborhood, if we could. This is the greater neighborhood. Could you zoom to 2840? You can see this is Seacliff neighborhood, large homes, very closely located with each other. I'm not going to repeat the discussion already happened. Neighbors can see into each other's windows. Neighbors have shadow impacts on each other's homes. Our map is showing 10 three-story homes within a block of 2840. It's just a reality of the neighborhood, the privacy and light impacts that homes have on each other. Turning to the context for a little bit, these are the immediate properties, 2840 to the left, the second one in on the right, and then 2850 to the left, that's west, the Wu's in the back, and then 2820 to the east. You can see how closely located they are. One more slide, if you would, is 2825 across the street. That's the third story addition. That same rear yard variance approved for that project. That does cause privacy impacts on neighbors and shadow impacts east to west. OK, thank you. And then turning to the findings, I want to first describe the changes that we made. Would you go to the summary? So this elevation summarizes the changes made. The roof was changed to a flat roof, as noted, that reduced the overall height by 3 and 1 half feet. The northwest portion, you can see in gold, was pulled back. I thought it was a foot. It was 10 inches. It's either 10 or 12 inches. away from the woos, and then the two windows were removed, all to address privacy and light impacts. And those go to the fourth finding of the variance, and that is that impacts on neighbors be reasonable. We would submit that they are. The residential design guidelines have already been discussed. They acknowledge that in an urban setting like this, especially this particular neighborhood, There are going to be light and privacy impacts. The first finding is important. Obviously, exceptional, extraordinary circumstances. We submit those exist. This is an unusually shallow lot. The home is located at the back of the lot. And this is a historic resource. So the police aren't able to construct in the front of the property. And lastly, it would be a hardship to the Cuis in that they don't get to enjoy a right that their neighbors do, and that is to have a functional third floor. They have all the reason and good reasons in the world to be doing this project. We feel like the variance findings have been met, and we've done everything we can to address the neighbors' concerns.

Thank you. That's time.

Thank you. President Trezeguena has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Tenney. On your presentation in your brief, you talk about, and I think you just mentioned it again, the shallow lot depth of your client. The neighbors in the brief, the moors estimate that the lot is slightly deeper than the average of six lots closest to them on each side. Can you address that point? Sure.

I believe the lot depth is 85 feet, which is unusual for a lot in the RH1D district. The lots are typically at least 100 feet deep. It may be similar to the immediate neighbors, But it's certainly smaller than the majority of lots in this district.

So your view is that the appropriate comparators are the entire district neighborhood rather than the immediate street?

It would be. And selectively choosing a couple of nearby lots, I would say it's the former. Great.

And a question about can you enumerate, not entirely, but enumerate the major changes you have made to address a neighbor's concerns?

Sure. Well, I summarized the most recent three. And mind you, going back to 2017, that original proposal was also diminished in size. But then most recently, could we go to the screen, please? You'll see. Could you show the prior, the approved? Yes. So this shows the 2017 approved variants, and this is what was resubmitted for consideration for this variant. And then the next slide shows the changes from that with the flat roof, removal of two windows facing 2850, and then pulling back from the rear. This is the third story by 10 to 12 inches.

So is it fair to say you feel that your client's moving in the direction of more amenities or addressing the concerns of the neighbors from 2017 to now? Yes, I am. Yes, I am. And are they the same neighbors, or are there new people here?

There's one new resident, but otherwise all the same.

Okay.

Great. Great.

And can you just address the issue of the shadow study? As I understand from the... neighbors that the shadow study was not provided until very late by your client. Can you clarify that? Yes.

We were not sure if additional changes were going to be required to the project before we were calendared for a variance hearing. So we waited until we were certain that the project was final. and ready for hearing, and also, though, giving enough time for a shadow study to be produced and reviewed. And so we felt like we had an obligation to make sure we were studying the final project, but that we also provided sufficient time for the neighbors to review the shadow study. They commented on it at the variance hearing, And we did it at our own election and our own cost. And it's been nine years, and the neighbors have not done their own shadow study. We've done two.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad. Thank you, President Transylvania. Good evening. So it was really instructive for you to walk us through, you know, what had been, what the variance had approved before. It looked like a hipped roof, three windows. And that subsequent to that, in response is my understanding to the latest variance hearing, you and your clients undertook some changes. presumably in response to what you heard and feedback then. Can you help us understand what engagement, if any, you and your client undertook with the neighbors? It's very clear from the record that there was communication with planning department staff, but was there any proactive communication from your party to the other parties running? There are new setbacks. There's the elimination. There's a different roof line. There's a different profile. Was there any comment or documented exchange on those proposed changes?

We sent the revisions to the neighbors before the final decision on the appeal. We didn't have a conversation with them. We understood their concerns from the hearing and going back in time.

Okay. So there was a response that you translated the feedback that you heard at the hearing into some revisions, and then they received those as part of the final VDL?

They received them from us before the variance approval was issued.

And was there any response? Did you get any? No. And when was that?

That was about a week before.

A week before?

The approval letter was issued.

Okay. So the approval letter was issued on the, I'm trying to, I'm looking through my notes here, on the 4th, or rather the 6th of April. So sometime towards the end of March, your team transmitted these and there was no, okay, thank you. That's all I had.

Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you. Thanks for your presentation. I see in the record some references to neighbor meetings held in October 2024, another held on May 30, 2025. Can you point to any revisions that may have been made as a result of feedback that you received in either of those neighbor meetings?

Probably not from the October 2024 meeting or after that. It would have been prior to the 2017 approval.

And so essentially, following the 2017 approval, there were no revisions made until you were already in the variance process? Correct. And in those fall 24, spring 25 neighbor meetings, Were revision requests or feedback or suggestions to make revisions to the plans, were they made or surfaced in those meetings? Not in those meetings.

OK.

Were there other neighbor meetings, to your memory? Or were those the extent of the meetings in the second round?

No, I don't think there were other formal meetings. But I know the QEES reached out to the neighbors a number of times. There were email communications between the parties. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wong?

Yeah. So looking at what was submitted, it was based on a hardship. Can you talk a little bit more about that hardship?

Sure. It's really about being able to do a third story. And for the Cuis, they are adding an elevator. And so this will allow them to reorganize the bedrooms at the second floor and bathrooms. This home has not been touched in decades. And so the idea is to modernize the second floor and the lower stories and improve access between the floors.

And I did read that the intent was for aging parents to move in. Yes. So the additional – clarify for me. The additional – the third story, all of that, is that primarily for the elevator to go in for access or – No, that would move one bedroom to the third floor and –

and then allow the second floor to be reconfigured.

So I think I'm still trying to figure out the hardship piece that's being raised. Because the first thing I heard that the hardship was wanting a third floor. So can you re-clarify for me what the hardship is?

Well, it's that if they are able to have this bedroom on the third floor, then they have more flexibility with how they use the second floor and those bedrooms and adding bathrooms and being able to accommodate different generations, including their children potentially living back in the home. So this really creates an opportunity for three generational living together. There's additional privacy having a bedroom on the third floor and then others on the second.

OK. And then if you could help direct me, was there a second shadow study done after the changes?

After, yes, after the changes. Yes, that's what we submitted.

I might have just been lost in the 300-some-odd pages.

Yeah, that was an exhibit to our brief. I'm not sure which overall page it would be.

Somebody could help me. That would be great. Try page 283. OK, perfect. Thank you. No additional question.

What page is it? Did you want us to show it? What page did you say, Vice Presidents Ryan? 283. 283, yeah. I can share it on Zoom probably.

Yeah. I think I just wanted to get clarification of like the difference, right, between the first one and then the updated changes. Can you walk me through? the difference, I guess, in the sunlight impacts?

It doesn't show that. It shows the shadow as a result of the changes. But we found, as my be logical in knowing the changes, that there was less shadow to the back because the roof was lower. It's, in effect, 3 and 1 half feet lower. And then pulling the third floor back from the woos in the rear of the Quays property also has added shadow benefit. And then it's less shadow from east to west as well.

But there's nothing that's very clear. So I see like existing house to the proposed renovation. There's no in between of like this was plan number one. And then this is the changes that were made as a concession of type.

Yes, it doesn't. You'd have to look at the two shadow studies to see. see the difference it doesn't got it show them all in one slide okay thank you okay commissioner bod

Thank you. I also had questions about the vertical addition and just the vertical rearrangement of the program within the building. So currently the structure has three levels, is that right? Three habitable levels inclusive of the ground floor?

Okay.

And can you talk me through what the current program is on the ground floor? What's down there? Is it just a dark, dank?

Mark or Corey, you want to talk through sort of the... Could I have the architect address that? I think so, sure.

Good afternoon, Mark English, Mark English Architects, along with Corey Akers. Currently, the ground floor is basically a basement space. Low ceilings, and it's unimproved. The main, yeah, with exposed beams and columns and so on, mechanicals. but reasonably tall. The next level up for the main living level is kitchen, Let's pull that up there.

I think I'm familiar with the upper stories. I'm just trying to better understand the current and proposed program for the ground floor. So if I understand correctly, the property slopes from west to east. So the eastern elevation has more exposure at that lower level.

Correct.

And so the proposed, this is about we're hearing creating a home where potentially multiple generations can live together. Right. maximizing within the existing envelope as well as it sounds like a third story, a vertical addition. What is the client currently proposing for that ground floor renovation? What activities, what services will it fulfill?

I think there is mechanical and laundry possibilities. There's also recreation space. There's a space where There could actually be theater space, or you could be watching television. If there are a bunch of grandkids over, they can be floors separated from living space. Right.

I'm looking at sheet A2.1. And there's definitely mechanical laundry services, an elevator shaft, some storage, which comprise maybe 30% of the floor plate.

I see there's a- The playroom space and media space. And the floor, obviously, we're going down. So this is not- You're actually- producing a higher ceiling level, but it's not It's not making a space as comparable to a space that would be gaining new light and air. So it really has a limited set of uses that would be comfortable. Really, playroom, media, game room, that sort of space.

There will be some excavation in order to get a greater head height. Exactly. OK. Correct. And it looks like the eastern exposure has quite a lot of fenestration. How many window openings do we have along that edge?

At this lowest level?

Yeah, I see at least, what is it, four, five, six, seven windows. Looks like seven.

Yeah, there's a bay window that's been opened up. Yeah, obviously to bring more light and air into that space to make it more habitable.

Yeah. Do we know what the general square footage is on this floor? I don't know. I don't see a notation. We can find that. Do you want to hazard a guess, Mr. English, about... How much more habitable space is being created with the excavation of the basement and addition of these new facilities?

Let's see. Just trying to find our index here. Thank you for your patience.

While you're looking for that, the new bedroom that's proposed is a third story vertical addition. What's the square footage on that?

OK. OK, the third floor condition is 680 square feet. 680. The basement level existing is 1,540 square feet of useful but not tremendously useful space. And that's not really changing.

So there's currently a media room, a playroom, a laundry room, a full bath, and storage in the basement?

There's currently a wide open space in the basement with some areas of mechanical and laundry. But it's sort of like many spaces in San Francisco. It's a quasi-developed space at the moment.

That's 15,040 square feet on the lowest level in the existing envelope of the building with ample potential for exposure to natural light and air and 680 feet in a third story master suite ensuite. That's correct. Yes. Were there, can you talk us through about the hardship kind of argument here? Were there studies of other levels of the building to accommodate family bedrooms or children's bedrooms?

Yes. One of the goals here, which I think Thomas alluded to and was a goal from the very beginning 12 years ago, was to develop a family home that could be multi-generational. That means ensuite bathrooms with bedrooms. And I think that's what was being alluded to before. By raising the third floor, we're actually able to reorganize the second floor to get those bathrooms to work so that you can have people of different generations not having grandmother sharing a bathroom with a grandchild, let's say, or a great grandchild. So that was the goal. And also, the space. It's not easy getting an elevator to go from the ground floor. all the way up to even two stories. So there was a lot of study about how to get a vertical shaft that would work on every level to serve every level, including near the garage level. So that was also a component in adjusting the floor layout of the second level. Thank you. You're welcome.

OK, thank you. I don't see any further questions. So you can be seated. We'll now hear from the zoning administrator.

Good evening, President Trasvinia, Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department. As you know, the case before you tonight is at 2840 Lake Street. It currently is a single family home in the RH1D zoning district in a 40X height and bulk district. The building is a historic structure. It is a contributor within the Seacliff Historic District. As was already discussed, the previous history for this project was back in 2015 and 2017. That was the original proposal. that obviously required a variance at that point in time there was a DR filed at that time as well but the DR was withdrawn and that was never heard at the Planning Commission and then the variance was again the project was revised at that time to address some concerns raised and the variance was issued in 2017 in October 2024 The building permit for that variance was eventually issued. And that permit was appealed by some of the neighbors. And once I saw that, I realized that that permit had been on hold for so long before it was issued that the prior variance had expired. And so we went through the process of communicating with everyone that technically that permit was not valid because it didn't have a variance for it right now. So hence the need to go and get a new variance. And so that's the process that brings us to today. And we did have that new variance hearing that there was public comment submitted in writing and in person at the hearing, raising a lot of the current concerns that we've heard from the neighbors and the appellants in their appeal brief and here tonight. One of the biggest issues, and this was raised in my brief, is that obviously, Seacliff and some other large neighborhoods, whether it's Pacific Heights or St. Francis Wood, it's a different context than maybe a Bernal Heights or an Inner Sunset. But we look at those lots within the context that they sit. I think the fundamental issue here, the way it was reviewed, I think, originally in 2017 when the variance was granted, and under this variance, is that the two big constraining factors here are that the existing building was built at the rear of the lot, so it's already in its required rear yard, and because it's a historic resource it is it cannot that new third floor cannot be any further forward it's as far forward basically as it can be without requiring much more preservation review and probably not supportable under our under preservation guidelines what that means is it's kind of constrained at the back by the rear yard and it's constrained at the front by preservation issues so if you did a third floor that met both of those requirements, it would only be 13 feet deep, which is very challenging to make actually viable, especially when you're building in elevator access, et cetera. So what we're talking about in terms of what's really triggering the variance is approximately six feet of depth. That amount of massing, again, if it could just shift forward or if the building was forward, would be completely compliant. The reason the variance is needed and a big rationale for granting the variance is that those factors contribute to create an exceptional circumstance and create a practical difficulty towards doing just a reasonable sized third floor in an area where that is not necessarily uncommon. As was mentioned, I think that the applicants may have had an expectation that they got the variance in 2017 for that project. They would just get a new variance for the exact same project. I think there's some expectation, to some degree, of fairness of nothing's really changed. The decision should be the same. Obviously, that's not guaranteed in a new process. There could be new issues raised. It's a new review, et cetera. So we went through that process. It was very clear at the variance hearing that this was something I was going to take under advisement. There was a lot of materials and information submitted by the neighbors. I wanted time to review that and really think about that. And when I take matters under advisement at variance hearing, we make it clear that there's going to be more. We're going to follow up. There's going to be more communication on this issue with the applicant because, again, it is typical when we take something under advisement that Obviously, it's not a situation where at the hearing, we're determining we're granting it or we're denying it. There's some level of uncertainty. And typically, more review, maybe more information is needed to be able to land on a final decision. And that's what happened here. Essentially, there was a certain level of back and forth, primarily between the project planner and the applicant, but with a little bit of direct conversation from me by email on the issue of where can things, like what can be done to address some of these concerns. Obviously, it's a challenge for them to shrink that third floor in a significant way. So that's where reducing the ceiling height to reduce a little bit of the shadow cast, also reducing the depth at the rear to help with that a little bit, and removing some of the windows on that western facade to help with the privacy. It was determined that with those changes and considering the previous variance that it did meet all of the five findings and the variance was justified. I would say on the issue of shadow, I mean, Buildings adding a third story in an area that is a two to three story context is very common in the city. Typically, the shadow and shade created in that context is not considered to be significant to the level of denying a project or not allowing it to move forward. And there weren't other really acute and specific issues here related to that. In terms of the... The issue about ex parte communication and the government code section, I'm not an expert on that statute. My rough understanding is that it is applicable to state agencies, and it's not a local provision. It's certainly not something under the planning code or anything under the municipal code that I'm that I'm aware of that would restrict that type of conversation. And this is similar to a case we had a few weeks ago from 170 Bocana. I mean, I had the full input of the neighbors. I was very aware of their concerns. And the work that I was doing with the applicants at this point was to address those concerns, reduce those. It was not to land on an alternative option. But out of time, happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. We have questions from Vice President Soroyan, President Trasvinia, and Commissioner Abbott.

Good evening. Thanks, Mr. Teague, for being here. My first question is, for the initial variance hearing, was it 2017?

Correct.

Were there any objections to the variance that was approved from your review of the records?

Sure. From my review of the records, my understanding is that there had been And actually, the appellant and the permit holder may know the context better in terms of their interactions before that did result in some of the changes between what first got proposed and what ultimately came before the variance hearing. Those plans evolved to get to that point. But the variance decision letter, as it was issued in 2017, in finding four states that the planning department is not aware of any opposition to the project at that point.

So there may have been some collaboration.

So I think there was some work up to that point. I mentioned a discretionary review had been filed on the associated building permit, but then it was withdrawn. I don't know exactly if that was withdrawn because changes were made. I think the other parties would know that context better. I didn't work on that case at that time, so I'm just taking what I can from the record.

OK. And then, I'm sorry, will you remind me, when was the most recent variance hearing?

It was last year.

It was last year. And then having listened to the appellants tonight in regards to their privacy concerns, what... What changes did you suggest to address those privacy concerns? And do you think there's anything more that might be merited, having heard any new information this evening? Which I don't know if you have.

Sure. I mean, what we have suggested, and to be clear, these were, I feel like suggestions is not necessarily the correct word. The coordination that happened was that I wanted to see some responses. What are viable and realistic responses to these issues that aren't necessarily something that results in something that's completely infeasible for the project? Because otherwise, we'd just deny it if that was going to be the outcome. And so from a privacy perspective, it was primarily just the windows along that west side. because there's not really any other specific viewing or privacy issues being created by this project. And there is already a distance there. And so there were proposed basically a very large amount of fenestration on that side. And so we wanted that to be reduced. And that's when that got reduced down from basically three large windows down to one window.

And then in terms of having heard any new information tonight, did you hear any new information tonight about privacy or the parties that were neighbors or anything along those lines?

I can't say for sure. Nothing that I've heard definitely rung out as seeming new. I think the privacy issue and the shadow issues, I think, were part of what was presented at the variance hearing before.

All right. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you, President Chisinau.

Thank you, Mr. Teague, for your very informative and helpful presentation. On the question of the post-hearing discussions, Well, I appreciate the purpose was to try to get more information, maybe provide some accommodation to address the concerns. I have two questions. One is your authority to do that. You said you weren't really you weren't going to comment on the law. But has the department ever analyzed whether it's able to do it under the law?

I'm not aware of any specific analysis at our department level of this government code section as it would relate to these types of communications once a variance has been taken under advisement.

And you, in effect, step into the shoes of the appellants and try to work with the variance seeker to get some accommodations. But is that basically the way it works?

I mean, I wouldn't phrase it that way. I mean, ultimately, whether or not the variance is going to be granted or denied or there's going to be required conditions is at the discretion of the zoning administrator. While obviously the neighbor's input is important, we want to get that, and also the input from the applicant is important. That's all a process of taking information so that the final decision the zoning administrator makes is the most informed and hopefully effective decision to get to the outcome they're looking for. So it's part of a decision-making process, and basically the communication is this is – I want to see responses that address these things. So part of that is a series of questioning, could you do this? Or what kind of impacts would that have on your project? Or are there other things that we're not thinking of that could achieve this as well? So it's really just working with the project sponsor to try to make sure that I don't issue a condition of approval that's completely infeasible or won't actually work, or there may be other ideas to address some of these concerns that I hadn't thought about.

And you're using your expertise, experience, to try to anticipate whether when you say, does this work, what you really mean, does this address the concerns and make a variance legitimate?

I mean, to be clear, the goal is not to just automatically address all the concerns of the neighbors, right? The neighbors raised some concerns, and it's up to the zoning administrator to determine which of those concerns and to what degree those concerns are either relevant or something that the zoning administrator also shares that concern and wants to see addressed. So it's not necessarily trying to get it to a state where all the neighbors will agree. It's trying to get it to a state where the zoning administrator thinks the project then qualifies for the variance.

I asked Mr. Tunney about the issue of the depth of the lot. And then the Moore's had stated in their brief that the lots three to the left and three to the right were shallower than the lot that we're talking about. The finding one says that these are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same class of district. When it says that the requirement is met, it says that the property is shallower than the typical San Francisco lot. So I'll ask you the earlier, my same question is, are we supposed to be looking at the typical San Francisco lot or the lots that are the same class of district or the same block?

I think how that's considered is kind of at the discretion of the zoning administrator. As you read, it doesn't explicitly state the exact way you're intended to analyze it. I would say that oftentimes when we're citing the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, it's often not one thing alone. It's the combination of multiple things together creating something. that situation. And in this case, again, these lots, you know, again, it may not be as shallower than its immediate neighbors. Again, that was referenced, I think, in general to, you know, the standard San Francisco lots, typically 100 feet deep. And oftentimes, as the variance holder mentioned in RH1D you typically have larger lots in general both in width and depth so I think the the point that was being made there the combination of the lot only exacerbates the squeeze at the rear and the front but it wasn't that finding wasn't made purely on the depth of the lot alone

And then in finding four, that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Well, we've heard from people who speak on behalf of the lots in the vicinity, but my question is, where it says the requirement is met, it describes the revised plans slightly reduce the depth of the third story. But is the correct comparison whether there should be a third story or whether the plan has been revised to shrink the third story?

I don't think there is a correct comparison. I think the comparison is what is considered appropriate by the decision-making body, whether that's the zoning administrator at the time or the Board of Appeals. What I would say is if finding four in its totality is saying that with these changes that have been made through the conditions that with that information and those changes, along with the fact that the project's determined to be consistent with the residential design guidelines, et cetera, that the project meets. It meets finding four with all of that into consideration. And as we've discussed in some previous cases, a lot of times finding four Compliance with the residential design guidelines is a big part of that especially in residential situations So if there is a situation where our department and our design review team has reviewed it and determined the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines Then unless there's just some other really specific Nuance to the project is generally going to be found to meet finding for Thank You Commissioner Abad

Thank you, President Transvigna. Thank you, Mr. Teague. Nice to see you. I have just a couple questions, one on process and one on design. But the first is more around design and just this question mark that I have about the necessity for a third story. And looking at that ground floor, it's going to be considerably improved, we think. What are the requirements for a bedroom in terms of light, air, exposure? I'm trying to understand what the constraints are on the ground floor in terms of that.

Sure. And I have to concede those are all within the building and housing code, so they're not really in the planning department's purview. So actually the architect for the permit holder may be able to answer that better. But typically, I mean, there are light and air requirements, but there's also you need the ability to – basically escape and be rescued in the case of a fire. So location of windows, size of windows, egress goes into whether or not that can actually be used as something like a bedroom or not. Exactly what those details are, I generally know, but I'm not an expert on those provisions.

OK. Sorry to stick you with a question that is for another discipline. The other question I have is about process. You know, the appellants are really leaning on a kind of failure or this ex parte communication, you know, being characterized as a violation. And so after the hearing in December 2025, the most recent variance hearing, you and your team, your staff were engaged with the project sponsor to try and address the comments that you heard, maybe additional comments that had been transmitted through other means. And that results in the plan that we see before us. There was an additional setback from the rear and the side, the roof line, elimination of windows. Did your team undertake any engagement with the other concerned parties, other neighbors, as part of that kind of post-hearing engagement activity?

So there's two answers there. The short answer is no. There's no engagement with the neighbors there. But just a slight nuance on the way it was described. The process was not designed to find ways to respond to the concerns that were raised by the neighbors. The process was designed to address concerns that I had that I may share with the neighbors. And I just really want to be clear on that, because this isn't a process of like, just because there are a lot of neighbor concerns that it's then the process to go figure out how to make all of those concerns go away. That's not the process. This was a situation where it's pretty common whenever someone is proposing a variance, And whether it's a tight situation or whatever it may be, if there are ways to reduce it while still making it a viable project, but whether it's tweaks to the height, little nips and tucks here to do what can be done, that's generally something we're going to explore to try to improve the project as much as possible. To President Trasvini's point, this finding four, we do want to try to reduce any potential impacts to the extent we can and that are reasonable.

Thanks for that clarification about what that post variance Engagement and the purpose and constraints are around it I'm just curious. I was just curious if there had been any exchange and if that had any bearing on The solution that was ultimately devised. So that was that's all my questions.

Thank you Okay, Commissioner Lopez

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Teague. Were there any changes to the planning code or the design guidelines in between the November 1, 2017 variants being issued and this second variance process, which would have given rise to a different outcome in the variance hearing?

Sure. There's no change I'm aware of in the design guidelines or either the preservation design guidelines. In terms of the rear yard, I'd have to double check. The rear yard did change, but I can't remember off the top of my head if it changed for this zoning district or not. I can definitely check that for you on rebuttal, but I don't have it off the top of my head.

OK. And so absent Absent that, setting that aside for a second, would it be fair to say then that the requested changes that you presented to the variance requester were a function of, you know, issues raised at the variance hearing or just taking a fresh look at the project, some combination thereof?

I would say both.

Could you point to some requests that were related to the latter or the former category to issues raised at the hearing?

Some of the issues raised at the hearing? I mean, I think the issues raised at the hearing, and forgive me, I don't necessarily remember all of those. But I think they were essentially the same kind of issues that had been raised in the brief. They were issues of light and air, and shadow and privacy. I think those were the primary issues that were raised. Obviously, you have different neighbors who might have a slightly different take on it, but in terms of what the core issues were, I believe those were still the same. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. So we are going to move on to public comment. Is there anybody in the room to provide public comment? I think just the parties. Is there anyone on Zoom? Please raise your hand. I don't see anyone on Zoom. So we're going to move on to rebuttal, Mr. Wu. And he did ask if he had about 25 seconds left over, and he had asked it to be applied. So can we give him three minutes and 25 seconds in rebuttal, please?

I can't do seconds, but I can pause it for 25 seconds and then start it. Okay, sounds good.

Ms. Lamar, we've had a request for a slight recess of about 10 minutes.

We're going to take a 10-minute recess. Thanks for your patience. Thank you.

Thank you.

SFGov TV, San Francisco Government Television.

Thank you.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.

Welcome back to the May 27, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. We are continuing with item number five, and we are now on the rebuttal portion for the appellants. Mr. Wu, welcome. You have three minutes and 25 seconds.

Thank you. I just want to be brief. The variance hearing is a quasi-judicial hearing at which evidence was received, it was evaluated, and the decision was made that affected our property rights. It's a violation of the law. You don't get to violate California law in due process just because you're trying to act in the best interests, you think, of the appellants here. Let me tell you how the timeline played out. After the December 3rd hearing, the ex parte communications and revisions were shared between the applicant and the zoning administrator without any notice to any of us in February of 2026. By March 3rd, 2026, there was an email to Mr. Tunney saying, good news, I wanted to let you know that the zoning administrator had decided has decided to approve the variance with the latest revisions that you submitted, again, without notice or opportunity for us to weigh in at that point. They waited almost an entire month until March 30, 2026, to circulate copies, partial copies, of the revised plans. And within days, by April 6, to be exact, after that March 30 circulation, that's when the zoning administrator issued his ruling. So there was never any opportunity for us to meaningfully address the plans and the additional materials that were exchanged. In fact, we didn't even see that until we asked for and received a copy of the file from the city. And that took about a month and a half, which we received about a week before our brief was due on this appeal. So it seems to me that we were deprived of meaningful opportunity to be heard in violation of the Constitution and the state law. As for the 2017 approval that was obtained without, at the time, significant objection, and I think that's the way they characterize it, I'll point out that neither the Moores nor the Willises really I mean, they couldn't have known about that. I mean, in fact, both of them bought their properties thinking that the variants had expired and seeing no movement, thought it was a dead issue. The Willises bought close in time, didn't even see the signs for the variants hearing until they actually were in the process of moving in. And everybody knows how hectic that process is. And the Moors didn't move until much later, at which time they saw that nothing had happened, and it was a dead issue. They thought it was a dead issue. The extraordinary circumstances that the other side talks about, they've not really shown anything different from what before is conclusory. And the right test is to compare it with the surrounding neighbors, not with the city as a whole. The city as a whole is not affected by the privacy and light and air concerns that we are affected by. And as I think some of the board members have alluded to, the applicants have not shown why they couldn't improve the ground floor to accommodate the aged parents.

Thank you. We do have questions from President Trusvenia and Vice President Soroyan.

Mr. Wu, I asked previously the zoning administrator about finding four. And finding four is that the granting of such variance will not materially, will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. That's a finding that he has made. And I wanted to give you the opportunity if you want to discuss to give us your views on whether the variance is materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity.

So we've already made our record, I think, on the light, air, and privacy issues. The other issue is that our property values would likely to be diminished by the loss of privacy and air compared to this. Because we are not similarly situated, or rather, we do not have third stories like they do are going to be allowed to build pursuant to the variance.

And can you just clarify something which I thought you said, but I want to make sure I have it right. The variance decision, when did you receive that?

The variance decision was issued on April 6th of this year. But they told Mr. Tunney on March 3 that the zoning administrator has decided to approve the variance. So we went by almost a month without knowing anything about what had happened.

And how did you receive notice that it happened?

I only received notice that it happened when we got the actual decision on April 6th. The quiz circulated an incomplete copy of the revised plans to the neighbors March 30th, just about a week before the actual written decision issued. But Mr. Teague had already made up his mind back on March 3rd and told Mr. Toney about it. At that time.

I'll just ask it another way. Who did you receive the April 6th variance decision from? From the Planning Commission.

From the Planning Commission? Right.

Because of your status as part of the testimony witness at that hearing?

Yes, because of our participation in the December 3rd, 2025 hearing.

Thank you.

Vice President Soroyan.

Thank you. Yes, I just want to clarify. So there are six parties in the appeal, yes?

Yes.

Okay. Can you just go over for me when the different parties bought their properties? So for yourselves, was that before? What I'm trying to get to is a timeline of who was living there in 2017 when the first variance was granted, as opposed to after that, who came to the neighborhood post, I guess, expiration of the...

Yeah, I think the simple answer is I don't know the exact dates, but the Chaputs, the Woos, myself that is, and the Cronholms have been there prior to 2017.

Okay, so.

The Moores and the Willises were not.

And then.

Or maybe the Willises were there just about the time.

Yeah, and the Skangas? Please, go ahead. Of course, please address. Yes. Sorry.

Answer the question. Mark Chaput from 2840, I'm sorry, from 175 29th Avenue. The first time when we bought our home in October 2011, the first time we ever heard about any of this was last fall. So rewinding 10 years ago or 15 years ago, we didn't know. We were not notified. We did receive the package in the mail and then were part of the neighborhood meeting. in October of 2025. That was our history.

OK. But at least two of the six bought their properties more recently.

Yes.

That's correct. The Willis's and the Chaput's.

Willis's and the Moore's.

The Moore's. OK. Thank you. That's all.

And I'll just point out that the Coies bought their property long before, obviously, as well. And they knew what they were getting into, right?

OK, thank you. You can be seated now. Thank you. OK, we will now hear from Mr. Tunney. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Real quick, first, the Willises filed the DR. Then they withdrew, for the record. I wanted to focus on the hardship and necessity finding and consideration. I think there are good questions raised there. And I would respond in two ways, one sort of bigger picture, one more. exacting, but context matters in the big picture to what is the practical difficulty or the need for the project. I live in a one-story, 1,000-foot home. A third floor to me, not having that is not a hardship. But in Seacliff and in this neighborhood, there are a lot of large homes with third stories, and these are how they're designed. the Cuis are not seeking anything different than many of their neighbors already have, some among the appellants. But more precisely, in the findings, finding number two says, do these circumstances from finding number one result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship? And we would submit the practical difficulty is, and this is what I said in the brief, two and three are kind of related. Practical difficulty is not being able to do a third story the way everybody else is. I mean, that's just true. It's not a full story. It's smaller and it's gotten smaller and smaller as we've gone through the process. And then three is saying, are you not able to appreciate or enjoy the property right that others in this class of district are? And I'd submit that's true, too, that the third story is allowed for everybody. And in this case, they can't have a full third story. And only with a variance can they have the not complete coverage third story. that they might otherwise be entitled to. So for those reasons, we'd submit that we meet those findings and are happy to talk about the process going back in time with the neighbors if it was there, if that's desired. Thank you.

OK, thank you. No questions. So we will now hear from the zoning administrator.

Thank you again, President Trasvinia. Commissioners, a few points just to raise. Again, the variance doesn't grant more development potential than would otherwise be permitted on this lot. It actually still results in much less development potential than actually what a co-complying project could look like if it was building new construction. This is purely just about location, shifting the mass and where it's located. As the permit holder referenced, finding two, there is a lot of focus on like hardship, but it is a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship cannot create about the applicant. And again, here that was found to be the combination of the historic development pattern in the rear and the preservation issues at the front that prevents that addition from being pushed to the front of the building in a way to keep it out of the required rear yard. To answer the question, Commissioner Lopez, yes, the required rear yard did increase since the previous variance from 25% to 30%, and that's basically about a four foot difference here. It went from approximately a 21 foot required rear yard to approximately a 25 foot rear yard. So that was the one change since the original variance. Again, just touching on finding four again, what was specified in the finding in this letter was that the key issues were that the project was considered consistent with the residential design guidelines, also consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic buildings, and again, typically when Our project is meeting those requirements unless there are other really acute or unique situations. We determine them to be meeting finding number four. And then a couple other quick things. On the due process issue, again, just to restate, there's nothing in the municipal code that I'm aware of that... would address the way these variances, not just this one, but other ones have happened. Just to be clear, that process was like the process of the ZA to land on a decision. It was not intended to be a more public process. hearing at the variance hearing like the public hearing was closed there was no intention of having that so just to be really clear on that and it was to result and obviously what was determined to be a more contextual project that better met the requirements or the findings for the variance I did ask that before the actual variance decision letter was issued, that the revised plans, once they were created to make these updates, be shared with the neighbors beforehand so that the first time they got it wouldn't just be the letter. They would have some heads up about the actual revised plans. And then the letter would go out. And obviously, they would have the opportunity to appeal, which they did. And I'm available for any additional questions you may have.

Thank you. I don't see any questions at this time.

Thank you.

So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you all very much for the materials you have provided, the testimony today, and your answers to our questions. They've all been very thorough, straightforward. And we appreciate, obviously, the stakes that are before us and the importance of this. I WANT TO START BY ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO AGAIN REITERATE WHAT IS OUR JOB ON THIS IN TERMS OF DENOVO AND PARTICULARLY ARE WE DECIDING WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE GRANTED THE VARIANCE OR WHETHER THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DOING SO?

Thank You president Trish Vena so it is de novo review so you are stepping into the shoes of the zoning administrator and considering the the request for a variance de novo and you can take into account everything that the zoning administrator took into account and that's in the record as So that includes also things that you've heard this evening. There are otherwise arguments that were presented in the in the in the briefs

So does that mean then that there is no requirement for us to address or discuss whether the zoning administrator abuses discretion?

That's correct. Abuse of discretion is typically the misapplication of law to facts, and so you are essentially, and as a higher standard review, you are essentially making the decision again. So if you, for example, uphold a decision, you're saying the board agrees on the decision that the zoning administrator made.

Thank you. I think that's helpful for me to try to piece together the various pieces of testimony and the various perspectives, including the role of the zoning administrator who has attempted to channel, in some respects, attempted to channel what he heard in the public hearing, but not entirely. And I think one way of looking at this, is this matter Wu et al. versus Kui, or is it the zoning administrator's decision to feel comfortable in granting the variance meeting the five findings. And our role, as just reiterated by the deputy city attorney, is that we are here to decide whether a variance should have been granted. In that regard, I am concerned about the due process issues that Mr. Wu has raised regarding having a hearing and then radio silence until the decision comes. and this ongoing discussion going on, helpful, attempting to be helpful. There's no labeling of good guys and bad guys in this matter. It's a matter of saying whether the variant should have been granted. But while I am sympathetic to the concerns about the government code and the discussion about whether this provision applies to a local matter or not, there is a sense of – there is a difficulty and a challenge. I have brought up many times about the issue of the privacy interests, and we have a lot of these – over-the-counter permits granted where the privacy interests are supposed to be taken into account. And I typically ask the city representative, well, whose privacy interest was it? Well, it was the neighbor. Well, where was the neighbor in the deliberation of the discussion? The answer is the neighbor wasn't there. It was an over-the-counter just between the applicant and the city. So it's difficult to protect a privacy interest if the person there is not able to articulate it. In this case, we have changes made With some idea, well, these are going to help assuage the concerns that have been addressed at the planning hearing and the variance hearing, but there's no real certainty because the neighbors are left out of the process. Where this comes to concern is in finding four, and I've read it before, that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. We've heard from The entirety of the public comment, the entirety of the public record is that there are concerns about that this granting the variance is detrimental to the public welfare, whether it's privacy or whether it's other aspects of it. And second is materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Well, the representatives, the owners of the property in the vicinity are right here telling us that it is materially injurious. So that's a concern that I have that if I were deciding on the variance, I would have a great difficulty resolving that matter in favor of granting the variance. At the same time, I also realize it can't not be simply a veto. by the neighbors, that they get to say, they get to determine whether it's injurious to their property. And because they say it, therefore it is. That obviously would go too far. And it's certainly not within the character of where we are as a city, where unfortunately, this is one of the only forums where neighbors can be heard effectively as State law takes away neighbor interests and challenges to various permits and other changes. So right now I would say I am concerned about finding four, about whether the finding four requirements have been met. But I want to turn this over to my colleagues to get educated on that point and as well as to hear their viewpoints. Would anyone like to be recognized? Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks. So taking a step back. because it's, I think, instructive to how I think about the question of who determines what's injurious for purposes of finding for. By extension, you know, kind of the measure by which privacy privacy interests are weighed, not just in this situation, but in others that have been before us. One of the reasons, and I appreciate the advice of Mr. Minardi with respect to the applicability of the state government code section that the appellants raised, In my mind, that question was not particularly dispositive, because I don't see these specific neighbors as interested parties in the variance hearing. I think the way that we as a city and the code have set up system for decision making, the next door neighbor has the same input that any member of the public would have in a variance hearing. There's no special seat or even time allotted for immediately adjacent neighbors, for example. They would get the same ability to provide public comment, whether written or spoken, to be considered in a variance hearing. And so I don't consider. and not speaking specifically to these appellants, but any appellants of a variance decision to be an interested party that would have needed to be consulted by the ZA as they're contemplating whether the variance is appropriate. I think by extension, and this aligns kind of with what Mr. Teague presented to us, I think he was very reluctant to suggest that he's stepping into the shoes of the appellants or any kind of member of the public in a variance hearing or a variance process. I think the role of the ZA, as I understand it, is to take a much broader view to not just take the comments of specific members of the public, whether they be adjacent neighbors or not, but really to look through the lens of the code, the residential design guidelines, to have a much broader and even more long-term view. Because the fact is, in the same way that we have some neighbors who are appellants who moved in after the 2017 variance was issued, we may have neighbors that turn over in the days following the issuance of any given variance across the city. And so I think there needs to be a more broad and thus objective view that's not solely focused on the comments that may be raised by an immediately adjacent neighbor. And so through that broader lens that I see this with, which I think makes sense given what we see in the code, what we see in the comments from Mr. Teague as far as the practices that have been adopted within the zone of or space of discretion that the code allows, the ZA and the situation, I do think that it has to be objective with respect to privacy. I think it has to be objective with respect to what's considered to be injurious. I think to suggest otherwise would almost give or place a burden on a variance requester to disprove any potential injury to a neighbor. And just as an aside, if we saw in the record or in tonight's testimony the number of three-story additions that have been made in the surrounding neighborhood, I would suspect that one of the appellants raised the question of property values as a guidepost for what's injurious. I would venture to guess that the property values in that area, even despite being right next to a third story addition, I would guess that they're probably doing just fine. And so all of that is to suggest, that the ZA has to apply something much more objectively than to overly focus on the comments or concerns of any given adjacent neighbor or any other member of the public as part of that process. And so I don't see a specific failing on the part of the ZA in this instance or just in the structure of the variance process generally when specific neighbors or members of the public are not consulted with respect to the revisions of plans. And with respect to finding four and the rest of the findings, I'm inclined to deny the appeal because I think We've heard that in the intervening eight years or so, that there haven't been material changes to the planning code. There was what Mr. Teague noted, a slight change to the rear yard requirement. And otherwise, we've heard testimony that there weren't other material changes to the design guidelines. So in my mind, it would just be really odd for a variance requester to be granted a variance under these objective standards, have very little change in the law in less than a decade, and then to be denied that same variance less than 10 years later. And so that's kind of how I see it. I'd be inclined to deny the appeal on that basis.

Commissioner Abad. Thank you, President Trasvigna. And I do concur with Commissioner Lopez. I think that the ZA was operating as the position is designed and within those bounds and within those constraints. So also inclined to deny the appeal. With regard to the criteria, and I'm still not entirely convinced by the hardship argument. I mean, I think there appears to be capacity within existing envelope of this historic building to accommodate the program more bedrooms, more bathrooms, et cetera. And even though the fourth level, we keep calling it the third floor, but I think it's really the fourth floor. It fits within the 40-foot height limit and conforms with a lot of the other buildings, the general urban form of the neighborhood. I don't understand why it's completely necessary. But also concede that the project sponsors did try to address some things that they heard. I would assume that's what motivated them to pursue some of these adjustments after the the last variance hearing. But in general, I agree with, in terms of outcome, with Commissioner Lopez that I also think that I'm inclined to deny the appeal.

Commissioner Wong. Thank you. I think one of the things I did hear from the zoning administrator, Mr. Teague, is the hardship. I think originally I was thinking of hardship of like why do they need it versus after your comment, I think I'm re-understanding the idea of hardship not as the individuals, but as the hardship of the envelope of the building itself. They can't build anything in the front. They can't really build anything in the back. The only option at that point is up. And I do hear that there were concessions made. The height is lower. Windows are in different places. I think that there was an attempt to do their best. I think the other thing I've heard time and again from the folks in this room is that they're all good neighbors. Like, they have good relationships with each other, and I appreciate that. I think I also agree with the sentiments here tonight is that THEY HAVE DONE THEIR BEST. MY OTHER CONCERN WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE APPEAL, WE MAY BE SUGGESTING THAT NO OTHER BUILDING ON THAT BLOCK IS THEN ALLOWED TO GO UP TO THREE STORIES. SO I WOULD ALSO BE AFRAID TO SET A PRECEDENCE OF THAT RESTRICTION.

As a point of clarification and information, What I'm gathering tonight is, and I think by spending two hours and 15 minutes, you know that we hear you and we understand how important these concerns are. I mean, there is a requirement to serve on this commission. You have to live in San Francisco. So we are fully, sorry, we're not fully because we don't live there, but we're well aware of how much time, expense, and effort it takes to be here tonight. So I want to thank all the parties for being here and presenting your arguments so well. What I am hearing from my fellow commissioners is that Mr. Teague, in his zoning administrator capacity, tried to find a balance between the needs of the homeowners and some concerns of the neighbors. My question really is, Would it be possible to make a suggestion or additional consideration for the variants as it is to look into additional privacy privacy measures, perhaps a frosted glass on the one window. Because I do hear the appellants, and I understand privacy, and I understand teenagers. So I don't know if that would be appropriate. I don't know if it would be something that might be a mitigation. But what is our capacity to consider something like that in the record?

I think that would generally come up at the time of the building permit. But there was a building permit that was appealed and the appeals were withdrawn. I don't know the status of that building permit. So it's no longer appealable since they withdrew their appeals. They withdrew them because the zoning administrator told them the variance had expired and they would have to go through the process.

Sure. Just to answer that specific question, that permit was suspended due to the appeal. The appeal is withdrawn. It's unsuspended, but it's on hold. It was left there because the proposal was essentially to have the exact same project approved for the variance. And if that had happened, then that permit would be viable. It would be theirs already issued. If this appeal is denied, and this variance is granted, obviously there are some changes that were required in this variance. So another permit will be required to basically revise that project for the conditions of approval here. And then specifically, I mean, and I can let staff speak on this, but for this decision on the variance itself, my understanding is the only way to make any formal changes would be to grant the appeal and then adopt your own decision, even if it is to grant the appeal, but with maybe different or additional conditions. That would be the only way to approve a slightly altered version of the variance.

But they will have a chance to modify the permit, because it sounds like a new permit has to be issued to reflect the changes in this new variance decision.

It does, but there's a question of is there something that you would want the board to require? Because that's what's before you now. If you don't take a decision now to acquire it, then it can be a request from an individual commissioner that they consider it.

Maybe before I even think about that, it might be better to ask the parties if that is something that might be a mitigation solution that they may find interesting or willing to consider. I would ask the appellants. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference. And I would ask the respondents to see if they would consider something like that before we even go there. Can I ask the parties?

You can ask.

Is it Mr. Willis? Do you mind coming up? Would additional privacy mitigation measures, given the scope of if the plans go through as approved, would additional considerations for privacy, would that make a difference in your possibly?

There's, yeah, within my family, I think my teenager will probably have her perspective. But what you recommended is a mitigation recommendation. I think the other consideration is around the windows that might be facing other houses, where specifically the Moores have talked about their privacy considerations. So I think they're not here today. So I think that's one voice that's not being heard.

Would that, if the property owners were able to consider something like that, would that make a difference for you? Or would it not really matter?

They'll make a difference. I think it's also the third story. I think it's the third story that's taking away the air and the space. That's also the consideration here. But from a privacy perspective, if there's a frosted glass, then that... And I just threw that out there as a potential. Yeah, I think that's the... Yeah, then we won't be worried about it.

OK, thank you. And would it be all right if we asked the property owner to actually? Sure.

They'd be happy to do frosted glass on that third story window facing 2850. So that's on the west facade.

I think it's both. It's both the Willis's and the Moore's. I think there's, would they consider frosted glass on some of the, on the other, just not, more than one window?

So all the windows on the third floor?

I'm sorry, I'm not here to try to legislate. I guess at least one, possibly others.

At least the one facing the Willis's, yes.

Yes, at a minimum.

Yes.

Yes, I'd love to hear from Mr. Cui.

Thank you all for your time, and thank you for trying to find a solution here. We've been trying to do solutions as well the whole way and been given ultimatums instead. Sure. If we need to frost our glass to get this over the hump, if privacy is the real issue, we can frost the glass. I mean, our windows face both of their windows. I keep my curtains closed because I like my privacy. When I look out the window, I see sometimes curtains open, sometimes curtains closed. I mean, Commissioner Rod, you mentioned I think in the first session you were mentioning about window coverings. We all have window coverings. I use them all the time. Frosted Glass will do the trick. I will do Frosted Glass. If they want to keep moving the goalposts further, I'm really not interested in making more concessions. As you've seen, we've made them all along and received no benefit.

I understand. And that was really my one area that I thought might reach some compromise on. Thank you. Sure. Thank you.

If you could yield, is a related matter to your question whether there are further proceedings regarding this development at other places, including that could be appealed back to us, where the neighbors could raise their concerns?

If there are, then that might be the appropriate time to do that. Or having heard this tonight, perhaps the new permit application would include that they would like to perhaps frost the windows in the permit application, and it might be taken care of in that manner.

So if perhaps the zoning administrator can... the city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong of this understanding is that there are there's a possibility to raise this issue in our decision but more significantly there are there are permits still to come at which time the neighbors could could have a say on the matters that are been addressed here that correct

And correct me if I'm wrong, when they apply for the building permit, they can just ask for frosted windows at that time. It's not required to be specified in the variance. I mean, the variance concerns the rear yard.

Sure. So there's a couple of things. Obviously, if you don't grant the appeal, there's nothing being required going forward. There will be another permit to institute the conditions, so the revisions, so the reduction of the ceiling height or the roof height and the reduction of the windows, et cetera. Obviously, the appellant and the project sponsor can work together before then to maybe land on some number of windows being frosted glass, et cetera. But maybe not. I don't know what will come through that. The neighbor would have an opportunity to appeal again at that point. But again, the issue is before you now, too. So that technically would be the process that would happen. But the question is also kind of before you now.

So it looks like we are going in the direction of denial of the appeal. You can make the recommendation that the property owners work with the neighbors on which windows should be frosted. And then when they go for the building permit, at that point, if the neighbors are not happy, they can appeal it.

So having heard Vice President Cerrone's questions and the answers from the parties and from the city, I would be, I feel heartened that there are further opportunities to negotiate, communicate, and appeal. the issues that have been discussed regarding privacy, and perhaps some other issues. There seems to be some willingness on the part of the variance holder to hear from their neighbors. And so I think that's progress. Second, on the larger issues of my colleagues, the reason why I asked the deputy city attorney what our role was was to clarify the difference between evaluating the zoning administrator's best efforts and whether we are comfortable, in effect, granting the variance. And as I hear my colleagues, I hear them addressing the zoning administrator made his best efforts. He uses expertise. He uses his experience. He considered all various things and did his best. And he worked with the variance holder to come up with some things that they thought would address the concerns. That, according to the deputy's attorney, is not our charge. Our charge is to decide whether we would grant a variance or not. And as to that point, while Commissioner Lopez discusses that it needs to be broad and general, that's true. except for finding four. And that's why I didn't talk about the other findings. On finding four, it's very clear it references, and the others talk about the general plan, the general purpose, intent of the code. Others talk about preservation and enjoyment of sustainable property right of the subject property, focused on the variance requester. Another finding focuses on the variance requester. But finding four focuses on The focus is on the granting of the variance will not be materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. So the neighbors do have a say. And I agree with Commissioner Lopez. They don't have an entire say. They don't get a veto. But it is perfectly legitimate to reference in their concerns, whether it is at the hearing, the underlying hearing, or the subsequent time when the zoning administrator is working with and trying to get his best effort to modify the variance request in order to assuage those concerns. So I think everyone did their best effort, but I do think that the city's process falls short on the considerations of privacy. People are, in effect, led to believe that they do have a seat at the table. part because finding for references the vicinity but then afterwards then it becomes it's all it's it's one-on-one with the variance requester and and the city that's not a problem we can resolve tonight but it is i think as as the city looks at ways in which to speed up housing speeding speed up building what we leave out are legitimate concerns of neighbors Sometimes they're illegitimate. Sometimes they're legitimate. But those concerns are more frequently being left out of the discussion. And that's a concern as we are the body for appeals from members of the public. We end up getting more appeals than probably necessary. If there had been a continued dialogue, and I'm only surmising, if there had been a continued dialogue or a multi-log dialogue, among the neighbors, the variance holder in the city, we might have gotten closer to a resolution, as we are attempting to do tonight, getting closer to a resolution on some of these important subjects. Having said that, I am very heartened by the answers to Vice President Soroyan. And I will join my colleagues if there is a motion to deny the appeal. Commissioner Lopez.

Thanks. I think I mostly agree with President Trasvina's comments with a couple of wrinkles. I certainly agree that our standard just doesn't require best efforts. It doesn't require an abuse of discretion. I think it's almost a reasonableness standard of 51%. And we do look at this with the fresh eyes of a de novo review. And one wrinkle with respect to, if you read the plain language of finding for that the granting of such variants will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or materially injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity. I just don't think when we're talking about remedies or concerns that can be remedied with window dressing, with frosted glass, that that type of improvement is rises to the level of materiality that's required in finding four. And I do think, even though Mr. Teague, again, has been very reluctant to say that he's stepping into the shoes of of the appellants in any of these reviews, I do think that the record shows that he nonetheless took the public's input from the variance hearing. We have testimony that there were very few changes in between the 2017 variance and the 2025 process. The ZA, nevertheless, made changes based on his testimony tonight was that he made changes based on the concerns raised at the variance hearing. And so to me, that does speak precisely to taking that public input into account. But for that, you might expect that the same project that's proposed in 2015 would have been approved again in 2025, 2026. And so that delta I think is primarily attributed to the questions raised by the appellants. And so I think we may just have slight variations or variances, pun intended, with respect to how we apply or how we weight these inputs. But I do think, based on the delta between 2017 and 2026, primarily being attributed to the public input, I do think that that was appropriately considered and certainly, in my mind, to the level where it meets the standard of 51%.

I largely agree with Commissioner Lopez, more the first part of his comments rather than the latter, but I would like to entertain a motion to address this matter and have a vote.

I'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the five findings were met.

Thank you. On that motion, President Trasvina?

Aye.

Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 5-0, and the appeal is denied.

We have no further business before the board tonight. We are adjourned at 7.35.