>> good evening and welcome to the november 15, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will preside and joined by jose lopez. trasvina, eppler and jen hoover will provide legal advice. i'm julie rosenberg we'll be joined by upon representatives from the city departments

presenting evening. matthew green with dbi and chris buck representing san francisco public works, urban forestry. board meeting guide lines requests you turn off all devices. no eating or drinking. appellates, permit hold and ares respondentedants upon given 7 minutes to present and 3 for rebuttal. people affiliated include comments within these periods. members who are not affiliated c have 3 minutes each. our legal assistant will give you a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes are required. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or schedules e mail the staff at

board of appeals. public access and participation sfgovtv is streaming live and receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning to which watch it go to channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 26 amount link to the live stroll is on the home page of our website. now public comment can be provided in person, zoom, go to our website click on the hearing link or this hearing. or phone call 669-900-6833. webinar id: 846 70179458 and sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number and access instructions on the b. screen if you are watching.

to block your phone number dial star 67 then the number. listen for the public comment portion and dial star 9 equal to raiding your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it it is your turn. dial star 6 to unmute yourself xu will have 3 minutes there will be a warning 30 seconds before your time is up there is a delay with the live proceedings and what is live. it is important people call nothing reduce or turn off volume on tv's and computers. if the participates on zoom need disability accommendation or technical assistance you can make a request in the chat or sends an e mail to the board of appeals. chat function cannot be used for public comment or opinions we'll take public comment first who are present here. now we will swear in all who

intend to testifiment any member of the public may speak without an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your comment weight raids your right hand and say i dom do you wear that the testimony you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. if you are a participate and not speak put your wareroom on mute. item 1 general public comment. an opportunity for anyone hold like to peek in the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar i know we have mr. bruno? please, approach. you have three minutes >> thank you. this is about the appeal that tells you i left this with you. each one of you. the same exact document the same wording and documenty gaveow

november first. this is a legitimate appeal i made timely on this permit. that was originally heard september 27. i have been here the third time. how you remedy today on september 27 you almost put a condition in the notify decision to say to mr. green and the dbi please, go and inspect the building there are a lot of problems there the land loushd come before us in the past without telling us. send your senior inpector i came back to say that was never doneful how could it be the senior inspector said, quote, to you, between the september 27 hearing and november first, no work without permits. is this on? over head, please.

that yellow -- pid. says work without a current nov at the building. it is has been there since august prior to my seeing you and coming back november first. and today it is still in existence. here is the nov. the yellow says, work describes scope from the plumbing inspector how could the senior inspector tell all of you there is no work without permit this is has been going on since 2022. i will show you something else. from >> jimmie du amy.

the fake adu in the belling the wall was knocked down in 2022 in november. it is still knocked down, is this had it means to have 2 appeals you all approved 5-0 on the 27th were generous you after consideration approved we need a wall like this and have scaffolding like this. which the plumbing person private contractor told me is unsafe and illegal. if you look at this you will see here that the roof top that anyone of usseen me i'm not athletic could jump on and get in windows it is there from november 22nd of 2022. and all i'm asking is permission from the board to do what i applied for in a timely manner the permit appeal you have before you. thank you. time.

>> permission. >> thank you. >> thank you. come to the podium. don't come it is okay. i think we asked for a written response. and i'm jump nothing here because i was here. during the first time mr. bruno appeard and there was an action taken. which upheld isappeal. and there were promises made and there was action to be done. and the owner clearly has not taken the action and dbi or the whatever parties that have not taken action to follow up on the request from the board of appeals not this commission. by the way. not a one of them. the previous commission. and now chapter two.

mr. bruno has come back. we recognize he had mertoilet his appearance. and we found accordingly and there were terms related that. and your defense asked to come back with comment and follow up on what mr. bruno was requesting and you have not done so. would you please do that and address mr. bruno's concerns as he represented them tonight. thank you very much. that is all we need to know we the written response. in a timely fashion i believe should have been now, okay. if you would get -- independent respond and might want to address the 2022 thing it has been awhile. i think commissioner trs vina

wants to chime in a bit. >> thank you. we will get to the minutes soon and i'm reading where i asked that what could be done. without the necessity of the board taking any action. i appreciate your following and up takeing serious leech i don't want to jump to conclusions but i appreciate your following up on this matter. now and i believe that -- mr. green or representative should be in contact with mr. bruno so as much progress made as possible your written report back to what occurred will have action items to the extent they are necessary and not necessary we want to know that, too. >> thank you. thank you. is there go further general public comment?

commissioner comments and questions. commissioners i thank you for arriving on time. despite the apack traffic. comments and questions? i have a comment. noting the great importance of activities of this week, and i'm speak of the game week >> yes. with this board has a majority of stanford graduates that bodes well for the outcome of the big game. okay. yep. [laughter] i'm goingil report back. who says san francisco is proverbal. yea. okay. commissioner. we agree and able to shake

hands. any public comment on this item. i didn't realize, thank god i'm permitted speak again i think we are missing something here. you represent the public as best we can in complex situations and made a decision from different appointments and this decision i will read it simply on this matter the plumbing matter is that the grant the appeal and order the issuance of the permit is upheld on the condition you resunrised the permit we are here talking about and 3 units

we performed has the unit as listed the order was made on the basis the permit was not properly issued. commissioner lemberg said and a long decision how it would be devised. in the building code any permit includeing one that it is in the important perhaps to the entire city but to those of us who live the tiny permit has been revised. reviseed require in the building code if your permit is issued and you need to make revisions apply for a new perit. mr. green's attempt labeling of this permit reinstate side incorrect not consistent with the use of the word, reinstate which is therefore permits that expire because of time. they are allowed be there for a

year, year and a half and reinstate third degree permit reinstated is appealable. and what i'm asking to you do if i come become another time i will i doubt the building department will remedy this asking you a direct thing to give me permission to appeal the permit that is incorrectly labeled reinstate when you said, you must revise it. not revive it. revise it. mislabel whatting is done in the department. if a department is changing the permit must be a new permit to this section of the building code online. why is this being treated different low t. should not be. i'm sympathetic had if it happened 3 weeks ago it is wrong for the department on make up

new uses of words. that's what is happening here. i sent in an appeal in a timely manner on this case. the timely manner 15 days and spoke several times with alec first and it was done in a timely matter and would like to appeal it. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment. >> i hesitate to comment on public comment. and -- but i do believe president swig have asked the department for a written response. more than once. and i asked the department to follow up directly with mr. bruno, my question is i hear mr.

bruno asking for permission from us or authority for us to initiate parking lot of this matter. and i'm wondering if the deputy city attorney can now or later tell us what authority we have to either revive or make get back jurisdiction over a matter that we thought had been resolved. >> commissioner trasvina i clarify the permit in question is not appealable. it is 15 days appealable 15 days from issuance not when reinstated the board made a final decision to modify that permit and it was the language the language changed that's not a new permit it statute same now it since the decision was issued it is no longer suspendd and reinstated that it is not appealable. >> so, it appear then what mr.

bruno is asking for is rndz the impression we have theed able to do something you have now you no longer have jurisdiction over this permit. you skw dbi provide a response. we no longer have jurisdiction over that permit. >> and either from you or from the deputy city attorney dom we have authority to regain jurisdiction over a matter? the decision is final issued. no. the answer is, no. the answer is, no. >> thank you. okay simple there further public comment on this item? okay. i don't see combooy will go to item 3 the adoption of minutes before discussion adoption of the minutes of the november first, 2023 meeting. commissioners, any comments or

hear a motion? commissioner. >> i move we approve the minutes. >> is there public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? so on the motion from commissioner eppler to adopt vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> minutes are adopted. now on to item 4. appeal 23-zsh 48 property 22-2 sergeant street william tweedie and rose snell. appealing issuance on september 21 of 23 to william tweedie denial of the owner request to remove a street tree without replace am the structure is good and vigor is healthy order 208643. and the urban forestry agrees to

allow the removal of the tree we will hear from [inaudible] first. >> thank you. good evening am chris buck urban forest with san francisco public works. this is regarding tree removal permit. and public works had deny third degree request to remove the subject tree at the staff level and after a public works hearing. after reviewing the appellate's brief, we no longer contest the removal and support approving the appeal on the basis the utility pole replace am by pg and e demonstrates the tree in the site is no longer sustainable for the tree to remain. the subjectistry italian stone pine planted the back of the sidewalk went 12 foot publicerate of way it is a street tree under jurisdiction. public works. it was planted without the

benefit of a permit. it was in the reviewed with long-term plan nothing mind. and the tree at the loekdz the base of the retaining wall is adjacent to a street light and the power pole. between the time of the hear nothing august and the date of the appeal, pg sxeshgs replaced the pole. the can open will tree needed to be pruned when the pole was replaced a transformer was added the drop down connection that require the clearance between the energized conductor and the tree branchs. after reviewing the appellate's brief and learning of this pole replacement forestry staff visited reevaluate the conditions and the condition of the tree. our department aggress the tree place am in the site is no longer sustainable. >> this week or last week our department reached out to the appellates and got on the phone

to discuss or change of opinion on this matter. both appellates remember happy to hear that we changed our prop to this. the site is not large enough to require that a replace am tree be planted the back of a sidewalk. there are 2 existing street trees. one at 22 and one at 24 sergeant. there is also a street light pole we -- closest we want to pleasant a tree within 9 feet this would be less and it is also located the base of a retaining wall. this is not a site where we would ever allow a tree to be planted. there is landscape in the area and both ordinance have green thumb and wellingness to maintain that area with plants. the own other thing i wish to

point out before wraping up. is that i do want to point out the pole and the utility was there decades ago. well before that pine was planted 25 years ago and i know well can be a tendancey from the public to hold someone account okay here. we have to allow utiliies we depends on. to provide the function and i know sometime its is not excite to look at the utilities above ground. i don't believe pg and e done anything wrong we have other case where is if than i have over stepped the way they treated a tree we will take action inform this case, they did as minimal damage they could to the tree to place that pole. they made it clear that i would really not have much ground to stand on if i came before you

and said despite that pole replace am we insist the tree remain we reached the point it is not reasonable. that said, the property ordinance also pursuing remeal if they wanted wait for our next round of maintenance that would be 3-5 years. public works would pursue the removal at our cost. however when an owner choses to remove a tree on their own they would incur the costs to remove the tree we agreed if they remove above grount we will remove the stump and watch for the wall and essentially call that good. we are glad the tree has not caused property damage the city to to some degree understands be liable for. it is not a site that is sustainable for a tree. it is more clear when the pole was replaced.

i want to note lastly, that pole might not have been replaced for decades we were trying to fight to preserve that tree in the current state but once that work had to occur, it became clear we needed to change our opinion. that concludes our brief. and again. that's the way this decision came about. thank you. >> thank you. i don't see questions. we will hear from the appellates. mr. tweedie and miss snell i'm bill tweedie and this is rose snell ordinance and occupants of 22 and 24 sergeant. we did come to that agreement. with chris buck and we appreciate his work in that regard. our briefing was the best we

could do and i think i hope you had a chance to look at it beyond what chris buck laid out -- there were other issues that kind of indicated to us that the for example the 2 street trees that are we plant in the 20012 strawberries, are severely impacted by the current way that the stone pine has grown. we think those 2 trees and -- we did a planting all along sergeant in 2001 part of friends of the urban forest. all the other trees are in much more robust shape than our 2 strawberries which have been

growing at the same time the stone pine was employees even though -- pruning was done they both impacted each other in the stone pine won most of the efforts we think that the strawberry tries will be better off with this tree gone. not clear to us how much weight is put on this. i there is a serious problem of the stone pine growing up against our houses. it is not clear designation who

does what and the sierra it is 10 feet back. we have not pursued that part but it is an issue we had 2 fires on our property. fire safety was an issue for us. and then also -- this tree has grown about over a not a year since 2000. it is now blocking the views. i don't know. go through the steps and here we are at the board of appeals and pg and e came in and helps us make that decision.

we think over all the pine should come down and appreciate the wording and approval to take it down and we will take it down on -- not wait 4 or 5 years. you touchod all the subject there is and important low, with the tree the pole transformer sitting there. with limbs loning in the house was a disaster. i feel i can sleep at night not thinking this could happen and we seen explosions. everybody know about them and that thing and take away my life or my home and my family here.

i feel safer sleeping in my home knowing that thing is sitting up there. tell not be loning in our house that thing to treat but the pole is covered. it is started our lives. i appreciate you for everything you have done. chris buck and coming out and see when we have seen here and what we have been dealing with and we love trees we plant emup and down the street. it is not like we are trying to take out a tree we want life. i like to work with the windows and see the views i saw and enjoy my life i'm too old to be thinking about the old tree. >> thank you. are you finished. yes, thank you. is there public comment on this item? i don't see public comment and the parties are in agreement i

don't believe we need rebuttal. commissioner this is is submitted. pulled back from their position. clearly the appellate has not which is appropriate. what is the motion so we should. would be to grant the appeal issue the order on the condition revise to allow the removal of the subject tree. on the basis that the utility pole make its unsustainable at the location. >> okay. and the bureau of urban forestry supports that position. >> yes. >> yes. anybody want to make that motion? moved >> so i don't think i need to repeat t. on that motion commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg.

>> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 5-zero. did we want to wave the rehearing request time period to get this decision out tomorrow? mr. tweedie and mrs. snell usually there the dissatisfied party can question a rehear figure you want to wave the right to being a rehearing we can get the decision out tomorrow so you can start the work right away. >> yes the sooner the better. >> yes. >> okay. >> we have that on the record and get the decision out tomorrow. thank you. >> we are now moving on to item 5. this is appeal 23-046. anil kavipurapu versus building inspection. 1331-1333 church. appealing issuance on september 19 of 23 to ateration permit.

refair the pyre egress and stairs and light well. no change in side. new guard rail this is permit 202306291194 and thank you, welcome to the appellate you have 7 minutes. can we have the over head, please? members of the board i'm anil kavipurapu this is my wife monica. andy are a co-owner of the building directly adjacent to the north of 1331, 33 church. the permit on appealing pertains to the exterior stairs. the stairs one side mr. chin's building on the other side an are attached to our building. mr. chin does not deny the

stairs ever attached our building and cross our property line evidenced by him state negligent brief it crosses the line photos in exhibit b in the brief. photos in the plan not guilty perimism since the stair case is attached his build and on the other side to our building, it requires 2 permits one for his and one for our building. the building code states no building regulated should be altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demo. unless a separate permit for each building. so mr. chin wants to repair the stairs 2 permits are required and he wants to move the stairs

2 permits are required. if mr. chin wants to remove or improve the stairs 2 permits are required. we don't understand the new idea mr. chin out lines regarding the connectors acrossing the property line. the regardless half is new idea for the stair case is 2 permits are required one for ours and one for mr. chin's building. furthermore i want to highlight inconsistencies in the plans submitted nowhere in the permit or plans or the drawings does he reveal the stair case is attached our wall. submitted plan don't reflect the existing situation. specifically, submitted plans don't show or state the stair case is attached.

and can be seen here in this slide. the plans show an open thering is a wall. show a door where there is a window. that was this one. and these are all from mr. kim -- permit. the drawings with the side view and the picture shows a window or the doors as you see here. the plans show landings in the drawing call out for the landing says to remain. where there are physically marked by mr. chin's contractor that is a mark on the board. and this slanting slotted for removal. first landing of the bottom the picture in thes second landing. show dry rot and the landings that are called out to remain.

the plans show the [inaudible] called out to remain. and to be replaced at the same time. plans don't show detail to understand whether posts repairs in the permit the stairs fully detached from the building. half inch with the new structure and our wall. our prior it have a well maintained build and want our neighbor to have worn and repair the dry rot. had the neighbor maintained properly wield not be here if not flush with our wall we would not be here.

paying 1 huh human costs and the schedule to abide by performing the repairs canments you to agree to penalties should anything not go according to his claim this is an exhibit submitted. in summary, we ask00 autoboard -- suspend the permit and the second permit is -- secured for our building.

the coordinated repairs mutually beneficial the stairs and siding the same time. question the board plans be resunrised to rectify inacreses and state and provide the details the stringers are given half inch gap. and given half inch air gap. given half inch air gap. the posts and beams setback half an toifrn provide an air gap. the plans should state which posts deems stringers, lannings, guard rails and hand rails. 30 seconds. >> and wish to be replaced.

we [inaudible] neighboring properties. more than willing to work to arrive in an equitable solution. thank you for your time. look forward to answering your questions. i don't see questions we'll hear from the permit holder mr. chin you have 7 minutes j. i want top say that the things that trying to dictate the terms and how the work is done is inaccurate. [inaudible] it is easy to cherry pick from discussionos e mails. messages that make it electric like we are not being flexible what how we will go about doing the work. the appellates make a lot of claims we disagree with and we have a trite this permit.

we don't agree we are responsible for every condition of the side the rot on there are side did not start from the rot on our stair this is is supported by inspection support our insurance carrier provided. the appellate had 8 months come up with an expert evaluation of the damage they did not take damage of the opportunity. there is in 8 and a half years we owned the property never once asked to look at siding. never -- they were not aware of the of light well and stair in our on our property.

it showed no maintenance done on their side the wear on their siding although the parts are closer not related the contact. there is an air gap with the wood and our stairs and the siding. we made every effort to find a solution and continue to offer to do repairs includes taking down their stairs and -- we have agreed to provide full access for inspection and maintenance knowing they need this to maintain their siding.

and changes allow us to separate our stairs from the wall and time spent to dot work. to detach it from their wall. the despeculate is about who is paying for their siding and this is an issue that the board of appeal system in the appropriate nor dbi are forms to resolving the appellate is trying to use this 2 bodies to drive this to favor one side. going back to repairing the stairs, only the connectors which are nails cross the property line. when this happened we don't know we expect it hen in this state for a long time.

stairs are within our property. and we can dot repairs without crossing the property line. we want to work with neighbors and we don't have plans to do this, it is possible to take down the wood of our stairs and leave the connectors in place but we would not be crossing the property line. lastly we have a need to address parts of the stairs at this point. the appellate aware our son has autism and a disability. and the present conscience on the first and second landing are i safety hazzard to him. denying us the permit to repair our stairs they are putting our son and others at risk. safety our high priority we need to address the hazzard soon as possible. i respectfully ask the board to uphold our permit without

conscience. thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner lemberg. i want to clarification on something. appellate stated in their testimony and in briefing they did not aware of the existence of the lightwell where this stair case is. if assuming that is true, why would your neighborings ask you to inspect siding if the property shares property line walls and it is not visible from the street or window in their home? >> i don't know. i think there is contradictions in the appellate's broef. he makes a statement that says he is not no one in the building were aware the stairs and a light well. and that siding so they arguing

about the siding. on page 3 of the brief. >> right. my question is why would they be aware of the side figure not visible from the house and the street and the rest of the property outside of that light well is a shared wall, >> yea. i raised that point because i it shows that there is not [inaudible]. >> okay. >> thank you and it goes back way before our ownership of the building. >> the also want to bring update point when we purchased the property. >> yes. >> i'm sorry your time is up mr. chin. >> thank you you will have time in rebuttal. we will hear from the department. good evening. matthew green representing building inspection.

before you a building permit to repair less then and there 50% of the stairs. interesting the plans were in the required for this permit the permit holder chose to submit plans. general low replace knowledge less then and there 50 percent plans are in the required. the permit issued on september 19th and suspended on october 4. i would disagree with the appellate's asertion that 2 building permits are required. this is a stair serving one structure. the permit holder structure. over time, it appears to me some fasteners sent through the stringers on the neighbor's property this stair does in the serve the appellate's property in any way. i would argue that this permit

here does details make it clear self standing stairs all in the permit holder's property. one confusing item that says hand rails to remain and if i get the over head there. this hand rail is attached the neighbor's property. hand rail to remain i recommend this you uphold the permit with the continues that nothing is attached the neighbor's property and half inch air gap is present we can do that with a special condition permit or the decision of the board. mr. green. i'm confused i don't agree with your point and i do. how is this i will confuse you.

there was a fire escape was single purpose fire escape serving one property owner. the fire escape was attach to the neighbors house. and at that time, your testimony was completely the opposite. that if you have a structure attached to your neighbor's house that there has to be or both names on the perimism as a result this body had to make a

decision that -- that included the -- collaboration i don't recall 2 permits or one that the fire escape could not be removed or adjusted without permits associated with both parties. why today are you having an entirely different testimony saying this is stairs. single purpose stairs and attached to the party next door that does not matter this permit should, go ahead. i discuss third degree last week in case you recall that fire escape was legal and served both buildings and over time each building was alter exclude a lot split this . building was legally installed attached 2 buildings. >> that's not my election.

>> it is that there was no permit that was in the file. and that nobody found -- any -- paper trail. attached another building and as a result the law is if attached 2 buildings that you have 2 permits that was your point. >> why has it change third degree time? >> why. >> like -- same thing i don't understand. that fire escape served both

structures. over time the nature of the structures changed. they want a permit to detach it from one side and leave it hanging. this one here this is legally built replace in the 1967 there was a permit in 67. it is my asertion to legally attached to the appellate's property. but if you disagree with my opinion. >> it is not about your opinion the law. i recall the whole conversation and by the way, i recall that i was for the removal of that fire escape and -- the law beat me to temperature we could not find for the removal of the fire escape the law say fist attached

both buildings. you have to have a permit. and so -- i was put in my place by the law said and you said it. if it attached to both buildings you gotta have 2 permits and we walked away wondering does not make sense at all but the law is the law. why -- why today is the law different in this condition? this is what i'm confused by. this stair case is attached to both buildings the law states you said it the last hearing and regardless of and i think a recitation on another example that was offered.

that you know if there is stair case a fire escape and anything that is attached with 2 buildings you gotta have 2 permits. look. >> why? >> i have the follow up question. >> i this is not this stairs fully 1331's property. i have not seen it they agree they are -- went through the structure elements. somebody drove a nail through the property and attached to the property that is a stretch on me. i will be happy to sends it become to get a code

interpretation. the problem is that here is what consistency and continuity with regard to the point of views that are offered are critical to this commission. we talk exclude have to be consistent in findings related continuous. this is a common done a rail attached the wall you said it. which is part of this condition. fasteners atachd a single nail or imbedded screws. last time we met i did not agree. there was a strong asertion that required 2 permits. okay. that's what it was.

and now the reason why i might agree we get a reading on this there may be a 30 one down the line in front of the commission. is tht tie breaker? i don't continuing should. it should be consistent with what is decide tonight and preaching. this is why i -- have an issue. so, you know i will stop talking and you think about it before you come back and rebuttal. other thing is the issue who pays for what that is a civil case. >> correct. >> so we are not going to talk about that tonight. correct. that is civil. correct. why correct. >> what we are talking about is this this attached and if it is then does it require 2 permits

can you think about that before rebut yam come back whether we should continue had hearing you need another view. or decide it tonight, please. >> of course. >> thank you, mr. green i have a different question which is what your opinion is on the appellate's contention regarding inaccuracies on the plan sets and the importance of that. >> i guess there is inaccuracyy about the door it is irrelevant. an item interior door that is not related to the stairs. the plans should be accurate but i think the work could go

forward with plans as written. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. grown. a couple of questions related mr commissioner lemberg i like to get more from you not on the inaccuracies butt scope of work. there was contention the scope was not shown in the plans. >> i'm sorry. examplined the scope of work is accurate? i have not bob site but the plans do indicate that the details and everything are to repair the stairs and make sure it is on one side of the property. like i said we would given them a permit without plans. >> sure. and may be that would have been appealed. the next question is about the contention the stair was not permitted. there were permits for the

stair? >> right. >> permit from 1967 can i have the over head. up see 1331 church street? real place roar back. i could say that -- look at this over head. that is the only rear backstairs. it is rear not the front there are no stairs in the rear of the property it is the setback. and so because there is only the single address the stairs were intended to be built not connected to the appellate's property. why correct >> and some point the stairs were attach the to the

appellate's property? >> yes. than i both agree they are. the attachments are legal, illegal? >> than i are illegal. >> crossing the property lineful this gets mow to the main question is, we are repairing the stairs? correct. >> what institutes the stairs? >> the stairs are the landing the flight with the rise and run and the landings. so the treads and risers. >> the poles that hold the treads are than i a part. >> correct the fitting this is go under ground. >> yes. >> and the things that attach it to the wall are a part of the stairs? the other things holding itum and together the per your feet

use or gets you upper part of the stairs not the part of the stairs what connected to the appellate's property also fall as part of. >> i don't than is completely supported by the neighbor's property. >> no single one of the poles that are a part supports it, right? they are a part of the mechanism. >> my argument point is i don't know it was designed to be fastened to the neighbor's property and held up in that way over time there was fasteners put through the stair structure to the neighbor's property. >> to provide support. >> i would, soup if somebody put another pole up they would be part of the stairs as well. >> correct. >> so -- would you may be agree with me that as a result of our

conversation we might consider the fasteners in the appellate's property part of the stairs. i guess i could. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you. mr. green i'm surprised how complicate third degree matter has gotten that is the complicated ones come to us. can you when you say, 50% of the stairs, can you e will beerate what is being change anded what is not what does this mean? less than 50%? in this -- on the proposal of -- mr. chin. less than 50% repair is there a

way you can describe? next question is -- these stairs serve mr. chin's property. there is no access from the stairs to the appellate's property? >> correct. >> so -- does the fact that -- is the only basis to say that the stairs cross the property line the fact the stairs are attached? to the appellate's property or another reason why one would say, crossed the property line? i understand it this is the only reason i have not seen a survey saying it acrosses the lineful

because you described it illegal or without authorization. >> yes. narequires the provision of the code the appellate put up. you need 2 permits that is interception is being put forth. i appreciate you don't agree. reason why appellate thinks a second permit is needed because of that attachment

>> i agree. so what i wonder and -- you may or may not know the answer, is -- that the appellate is holding on to by not getting a permit and allowing the illegally fastened stair case to be unfastened. i would skill wonder whether you envision a reason why somebody would with hold prove of getting a permit in the circumstance. joy would not care -- -- jump into this at all.

and -- that's all i have, >> thank you. >> i want to follow occupy this now rather than later. we talked about weather the fasteners and the legal connection is part of the stair. and then i guess my question is if this is not legal component of the stair what is does this do to the legality of the stairs as a whole and if you did detach the stair does this now mean the fasteners are no longer require remediation under the building code. is that like a we pull today back and get out of jail for free? i have a hard time envisioning how you can detach it without removing the fasteners. i heard the permit holder say

that. might be feasible i can't. >> i was taking that at face value if you don't think so we have this issue where if we have to remove the fasteners and the question then is if i reach over a property line and hammer a nail in my neighbor's house. and reach out with the ham and pull that nail back out is that something can i do without a permit from the other side? if you nailed coming? later. i asked for a permit for the side on my side of the property. that's okay. answer in rebuttal.

i'm saying that -- if i do something legal attached my neighbor's property and take care of the stuff on my side am i pulling part back out, is that mean i have -- detached it and don't need permission from my neighbor's property for my pulling await structure i attached. that was what i expressed earlier. different superstition. >> and to be fair when you expressd that i thought we were taking for granted they would remain and i would not pull them away now that we have that this it is good we made that clear we are pulling away and this is your superstition. i don't see how can you remove the stringer. least fasteners.

still are there embedded in the property 3 half inched on one side. how would you -- i don't see how do you that and not to spiral on this is that shown in the scope of w they will remove. >> no. >> does it show they are. the scope of work because the permit holder says they will leave them we have plans a statement that those plans don't show the scope of work you say they will pull them out and is that within the scope of work in the permit. jot work -- the plans are drawn it is showing everything on the permit hold everybody property. commissioner trs vain permit you showed should i take from that

the stairs this we are talking about have been there since 1967? pibefore the permit was replace stairs. >> and you are not aware of when the fattening took place? i am not. okay. i'm looking at the appellate and say the permit holder earlier. i'm guessing they were not the building owners -- prior to 1967. and both inherited in broodly peeking problem? >> one more. sorry. >> thank you, mr. grown. i wanted to clarify one point --

i think we heard testimony from the appellate that -- the plans don't show the appellate's property. right? and then i'm looking at them now and i'm not sure i'm looking at the right -- document but i don't seat appellate's property -- and yet, you say that the statement of work states that the fasteners will come out? >> no it is not mentioned. the permit holder mentioned they will leave them and i have a heard time imagine magging this is possible the plans and the statement of w don't make it clear they will remove >> no they don't say they are fastened to the neighbor's property. if it doesn't state it would not

state they will be removed. >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment upon anyone here for public comment? on zoom? if you are on zoom, raise your hand. i don't see we will move on to rebuttal. appellates, you have 3 minutes. >> go ahead, please. hi. so i'm not a good speaker and not a lawyer. but this is very simple sentence. it says structure revving litted the stair case is regulated by the code for any work 2 permit it is are required i don't understand why that would not be the case for this. it is plain language. is that code does not apply i

need explanation. we mentioned our other inaccuracies in the plan and like to request the board the permit holder needs to address that before the permits issued. and most low we want our build to be well maintained it is not preventing them we want to have equal opportunity to [inaudible]. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasvina for you. i have a question that i asked mr. green. hoping he might know. i will ask you >> since the stairs don't provide access to your building, what is preventing you from providing your consent to or filing a permit to allow this to

happen? over head, please. i have also like 8 pages detailing the communication with the neighbor over 8 months i'm happy to discuss if needed. most low we don't feel why neighbor asserts he does toefrg work with us we don't neil is the case if threatened with penalties for the work done with our wall and if the neighbor says not the trueoir contractor. and -- yea. i think most low that we would like to close the contractor to repair our wall. and don't think it is fair spoonlt for neighbor's lack of maintenance falls on us if there is damage to our building the dry rot repaird that might be

the case and scope of work longer. we don't think we should carry the schedule risk. thank you. thank you. we will hear from the permit holder mr. chin you have 3 minutes >> i want to address that last point about contractors. i -- and the county my main concern is that we want to reassurance that the stairs will be we have to take down the disparities provide access to our getting our neighbor's contractors access to our first floor to work on the stairs. and as i said, the discussion about the details on going for 8 months. we are flexible.

we want to work. one, we agree i don't want to scoot my neighbors over i want our property to are well min stain evertain anything we can do this we can address my occurrence making sure that my stairs not in a state. the on going discussion has been about the siding and who is paying for it. we are not responsible and this useing with hold our permit as a way to force us to accepting their terms.

this was a civil matter. we have an autistic son. parts of the stairs are not sdrifrngs but they are to him. he has inability to pay attention to environments and has the -- movements that are not under our control special will spin and he will crouch unpredictablely. we have been waiting 8 mont its is not our intention to -- abandon our neighbors and to just fix our stairs and leave. i fwlang as a point to say we can dot repairs without crossing the property line.

we need the permit to address the points of the stairs immediately. there are uneen surfaces. and the second is to work with neighbors they have time constraints we will wait until the rainy season passes and fix the immediate points first. and oui will work with our neighbors to figure it out. time. i don't see questions. we'll hear from dbi. >> good evening. there was a request what am be replaced in the stairs per plans on ground floor replace 2 posts and the stringer. and the second floor a new post and new string and third a new string and mentioned replacing

the deteriorated treads. if that of the building inspector during the inspections decide that is more than 50% they require another permit. so -- we are you still did not answer my question i will not pickow. what i'm trying to hear is -- help resolve this issue. the issue of the wall and the repair and the wall. the civil manner. see you in court tht answer i

would offer. differences with the case they wanted take down the entire fire stairs. and that was a big deal. here what i am hearing is that is that they want to repair the stair case to prevent an accident with another human who has disabilities. okay. correct. and the difference here for me is this this is a not a

demolition. is it or not. it is not. >> okay. >> so that is where it differs from the fire stairs of the previous one we heard. which was a full demolition. or a separation and demolition. andiery rigging around it. and on this 21 is a repair of the stairs. where is the fine line that might not kick in. i think you may have said it but clarification. where is the fine line between where a repair of the stair case and

>> where repairs xu don't need 2 permits i think. so tell me more. tell us more. >> give us advice. >> 50% is the number we said if repairing up to 50% we consider a repair. 51% more a replace am even if you replacing 75% it is a replacement that requires full plans and set. i still go to intercept it

differently a replacement you don't need 2 permits here my suggestion is i think the permit holder said they will wait to the end of the rainy season before they dot work i like to bring the question about the 2 permits to code and give you a written reading on that. >> you would recommend this point given my concern about continuity of the decision making and consistency in reading this -- my reading versus yours. this your add vise we do a continuance to go back and get a further review and yea. an interpretation. >> okay. >> and then we fight all over it again. and we are not causing the permit holder -- significant duress he was not going to do it

next week. gi believe he said wait to end of rainy season. >> exactly. march. >> the permit hold cert raising his hand. may be confirm that. sure, i think it is a fair that why don't we ask the permit holder after i want to ask the permit holder this question but not in during the time of mr. green's testimony. >> makes sense. maintain the proper protocol. but -- you recommendation today is that we not resolve this issue today. and that you go back and get a more defined interpretation of the situation we come back soon. and you will have it. and we can be better advised?

>> correct? >> except for the soon part i don't have the calendar of the committee on hand i'm not sure when they next meet i hopeful low do this in january and get it by then. needs to be mid december i can -- so all the above of what i said and you will advise us and add vising us this may not number december but could be january based on the wheels. we'll ask the question of -- the permit holder whether this works for him and that would cause anything >> commissioner lopez. >> thank you. i want to make sure i'm understanding a couple of things. way that i see this. is there are a couple of

variables that i think are potential low determined here. 50% less than 50 or over question. which essentially fiunderstand states less than 50, you know repair, over 50, replacement. and your -- position is that -- that is not material because even if were a full replace the property line and the plans show the stairs are fully on the permit holder's property and that 50% threshold question is not relevant? >> yes. >> and can i clarify the difference with 50% less than 50 and more less than 50 a repair

in plans required you describe on the application the w you will do. more than 50% we consider replace am plans are required. in this situation, the permit applicant said less then and there 50% and drew plans anyway. we don't require it for less then and there 50%. >> i'm with you. then the second variable is -- which i believe distinguishes this case i remember a prior case the dangling fire sxaep case. in that situation we had a lot that was split and so the fire escape not only physically was attached 2 properties but according to the actual plans on

file with the city, showed that the fire escape straddled across both property lines it was a physical reality a legal one under the plans on file with the code. >> yes. went across the property line and attached both. in that situation it stands to reason that you need the structure goes across 2 line fist you want to remove it, you need 2 permits. where as here, i see variable the plans show innet suggest aside the physical reality show that the structure exists on one side of the property line. >> correct. >> so -- numbered logic of which side of the property listen you

are on which alines with the plans before us, this is all legal low speaking on one property owner's property. >> according to the plans, yes. >> now the question where reality does not aline with those plans based on the picture it is we see we don't know who put this there. this is distinguished from the earlier situation we don't have something this legally straddling 2 properties it is only on one property. this is my reading of it, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner eppler. we spent time talking about the attachmentless to the appellate's property and we i think we they include nails or

other joining materials that cross the property line and into the appellate's property. >> yes. assuming the wall is on the property line. may be we need to surveyor to verify that. >> assuming that all right. the wall is on the property line then there is material that is part of the stair well this goes in their property? and if we were to remove that attachment we would remove from their property a part of the stairs or something related it. and the code says that no building structure erected, constructed altered, repaired, removed, improved.

removed, pulling something out part of a structure that is you know regulated by the code unless a separate permit. we are removing something. >> yea i think they here whether you call the fasteners a part of the stairs or just hardware. you think they are i think they are not. >> thank you. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. permit holder. permit holder. mr. chin. >> yes. i want to bring up the reason for the urgency of the permit is we because of the risk this my son faces we planned on dividing the work address the boards on

the stairs that present a tripping hazzard and do that quickly that was reason why we hope to get this permit. and the rest of the work includes taking down the stairs on allow our neighbors to replace siding we will work with them on a schedule and the timing of that they suggested is after rainy season. we need to do work on the stairs now to address immediate safety hazards. >> thank you. >> commissioners this merit is submitted. who wants start. commissioner eppler? all right. the appellate expressed language issue this did we discuss what with them in terms of providing service or accommodations.

they never said anything to me having a language barrier and i have been communicating request them i'm not sure. >> i have been communicating with anil and du say there was a language barrier? no one requested an interpreter and he is a good writer i did not. >> okay. i'm sorry where did you get they have a language issue? one of the -- appellate or representative before she spoke tonight said that she had a language issue. >> okay. i'm not amazing speaker. i don't think i have fluency. >> yea. >> okay. her husband filed and i have been corresponding him i did not know they needed an interpreter. can we state for the record this

i heard the appellate say that she not requesting acomeidations now okay. for the record. thank you for that. all right. thank you. so -- i appreciate the creativity we have been trying to go through to expedite this process. i amming this in circumstances that time might be useful may be an agreement can be hammered out on the civil issues the tail wag the dog of this permit in a lot of ways. this standing, i -- i got a problem with the way the dbi look its it is pretty simple clear rule that when you have something that is under the building code that is -- you

know across a line in -- the property kline special in this case physically attached to the property across the property line then if you are doing something that does those things including repairing or removing you need that permission. and may be that conversation will help in the negotiations on the civil matter. part of the reason why on the pacific case this was an issue for the permit seeker was that there was an elderly person. we had a person who another person with mobility issues. there is a similarity there. upon even though it is a small amount the code is the code. issue about the legality of the work.

and the permit this is filed by both parties. that's my thoughts.

i concur with commissioner epilers reasoning and president swig's. i being the question here that is before this body is simple. does this project necessarily involve w to be performed on both properties if the answer is, yes the permit was not properly issued. i think my fellow commissioners asked several questions that were trying to get to the heart of that issue. and my conclusion was that this -- permit involves work on both properties even if it is miniscule unscrewing something from a wall this is the rule as commissioner eppler said. i think it would be dangerous precedent to set not granting

appeal because we would be saying well, 2 permits might not be required if x, y and z is met. i don't think this case presents anything exceptional. i have empathy for the permit holder situation with his family and son. i don't see the legal path to not doing anything other than granting the pel for this reason i vote to grant the appeal. vote to deny tonight. i think this is an example of over helpful century old stair case. serves one property owner and i disagreed with the ruling on 2507 pacific because of the ability of a property owner to with hold their consent or with

hold cooperation. from an ajoining program owner this is a stair well this serves mr. chin's property. we know his son need its. needs the improvements to be done. and this is i didn't asked. what is the interest of the appellate? seems to be because the neighbor's stair case has been ajoined to their property at the line. and that's -- where you get in the issue of 2 separate permits. i felt this -- envisioning of it allows for unreasonable positions to be taken. i agree with our rule nothing 2507 pacific. i agree with the department's

view that this is one stair case. one property. irrespective of the adjoining of it. perhaps if mr. chin just left those things there, and only did the work on the stairs which is sounds system what he is seeking for us a result tonight. and allow in civil court issues of how -- the fasteners removed and the work and who's responsibility. all of those set aside from this decision tonight. if we cannot alua stair case to go forward for the safety of a young person the criticism this we hear, about how this board is such an obstacle to the great

progress and success of the city for housing if we can't allow this to go forward i think this the criticism is alths more valid than i would otherwise admit on other days. i believe that the permit should be upheld and i don't believe it requires further instruction or guidance from the department. so. my vote would be to uphold the issuance of the permit. commissioner lopez. yea. i am of the same mind. i think in the surprised anyone based on my questioning the same mind as commissioner trasvina. you know it feels like a bit of a logical stretch a property owner would not be able to fix

stairs on their property. i feel like if you know i pulled friends or family or someone on the street on what it would stand to reason they would say yea that's something you should be able to do in san francisco. and you know i feel like if you look at the 4 corners of the permit. which say, 50% repair. and the stairs are on your property line. you should be able to do this. now if somebody exceeds that if a permit holder exceeds the 50% and demom everybodies the stairs which would be in my opinion exceeding the 4 corners of the permit before us. this is a separate issue not the issue that we are discussing. we are discussing, can you

repairs 50% of the stairs on within your property line... in accordance with these plans. we have some speculation as to whether that is possible without taking out these fasteners. well, the permit holder is saying they can do it and the plans don't call for demo of the stair they calm for repair to rule to rule in favorite appeal feels like ruling in favor of speculation of something this may be required but not list in the the permit and not in line with the will permit holder and position they can do the work without taking out the

fasteners. for the fact that we had the question the neighbor to say how du then and there existed. because you don't have visibility from your property. this is in the visible from the street that to me says -- for all practical purposes and within the permit within the property descriptionos file with the city, this is went 4 corners of this property owner's property. so -- i have a hard time saying they can't do this repair up to 50% in line with the permit if they exceed that, then there are consequences and avenues for

mitigation and liability but that to me is outside the permit and the question before us tonight. that is something the permit holder may potential low do outside of what they described and what is they stated tos tonight and in the permit. i vote it deny the appeal. i would add is -- if the code -- advisory avenue is of interest familiar that would clarify or settle the questions i could vote in favor of a continuance to have that question solidly

addressed by the agency but i would not vote in favor of the appeal. julie, what's the vote need to be? to support the appeal? you need 4u don't have 4. commissioner trasvina and vice president lopez in favor of denying. so. we ain't going to get to 4 doesn't matter. okay. just fyi. i ferociously agree with commissioner trs tras vinnia and lopez and with the other 2 commissioners you are all right the problem is that we have this

item in place that says if you are connected to the building next door we saw it. they put it up there. we seen it before. so the structure absolutely is connected to the building. and i agree completely with commissioner lopez and trasvina. wait i think i agree with you, too. this is a problem. all right. its the same thing oui came up against the last time with the dangling fire escape. i really think that even though it presents a burden to the permit holder i think we should get a continuance and get dbi do their job and come become not that you are not doing your job.

but you offer the opportunity for the clarification. to with a higher power that special. agency part of your thaejs does this. and i think we should lean on that agency and get a ruling from them. i continue is a pain in the neck. and i know it costs the permit holder patience. you know but we will not get to 4-1 vote. and i think that begin that -- the tide does not go to the runner. we should do a continuance. it is responsible. i really hate to set precedent of going against what is in writing as guideline.

i really hate that and i of course this is the position of 2 of the commissioners. i hate to go against common sense which is what your position is commissioner trasvina and lopez. it is dumb. but i would rather lone on dbi to give us more clarity since it is available and not necessarily up to us. i would mikhail motion to continue this item for the purpose of getting more clarity from dbi on the over all issue. where do we g. that's my motion. let me get feedback through a vote on that motion. >> motion. continuance. >> inspector green january 10th? would that be time?

to get an opinion from -- >> should be. yes. >> okay. >> thank you and let's check in with the appellates are you available january 10? yes. okay and mr. chin are you available january 10? you are on mute. hold on one second. >> yes. >> okay. wonderful. >> so we have commissioner trasvina like to comment. >> sorry. >> thank you president swig. i do appreciate you trying to reconcile the code. the department, and your colleagues. my colleagues. i worry u though that the continuance is not the present way to go because of the permit

holder citing the medical needs and desires of himself and family and second that if there is a way that part of 2 points one is a way for the w on the stair repair to be done while we await the issue of the fatteners, i think we can accomplish both. allow safety and allow an answer from the department to address the part of the part of the mermitt of concern. >> ask mr. green that request. gi want to add there is a way to get in the house this is the side entrance. >> i'm still speak here.

second is that -- i believe you said we had a motion? before us? the megz for a continuance. >> before there were references to all of you saying i would support a motion or i would not support this motion but no motion on the table. >> that answers my second question. i thought we had a motion. so then there is one motion ahead. which is yours. i will respective low not support i believe there should be a way to prosecute seed or the permit holder can proceed on the part not objectional to the appellate. right now you got a 2 to 2 and

3-2 to support appeal will not work anyway. president swig. you can obviously can correct me if i'm wrong i was under the impression that if there is a motion to grant the appeal, and loses then the permit is upheld. >> not a requirement there be for you vets to uphold the appeal. we could have a motion on granting the appeal. and would lose. and there would be resolve the matter. >> you are right. jot permit upheld by operation of law a denial of the appeal. we could have a substantive -- a disposition of the matter tonight. >> for sure and an additional motion to continue it if your motion fails another

commissioner could have a motion to continue the item. >> right. >> by that time we would have denied the appeal and nothing left to continue. >> i believe it would be your motion would be to who is making the motion to grant the appeal or deny. >> motion on the table nois continuance resolve that and get in the and other if it fails then we can discuss whether we want to have another motion or not. and it could ping pong back to either any of 2 motion fist a motion failsy ask are there more motions and go from there. >> right. >> would you like to ask mr. green could be done to satisfy you should need about 30 seconds from now to remove myself for a second.

>> i want to add the permit is suspended under the jurisdiction of the board. >> can we have a minute break i'm going to have a problem if won't don't. thank you. we will take a 5 minute break. welcome back we will typeset on with item 5. we well it commissioner trs vina had a question for dbi. i believe. thank you >> my question is -- whether any work can be done under the

permit while we await a decision from the code commit eye? the permit is suspended had the appeal was filed if there was danger of collapse we would allow repairs. >> so absent imnan danger of collapse the way w can go forward if we make a decision tonight to deny the appeal? >> you mean immediately? i point out that i don't know this i assume there will be a rehearing request you will rehear this on december 6 and push this to january again. so -- in reality my opinion not much difference with continuance

assuming the appellates file a rehearings. base on the decision of the party to decide what either decide on their own to make an agreement or correct. >> that's true or exert the rights available to them under our rules and under the code. i would say -- regardless of your decision tonight i will ask the committee for a decision on this. >> thank you. >> okay. president swig. thank you, mr. green. at the break the appellates approaches me they feel they should have another opportunity to address the board are you going to allow this or no? i think we had the hearing. our general unless there is a

way to that unless presenting an opportunity to drop their appeal or to come to a settle am which is -- manifested itself due to a conversation with the permit holder i think we had the hearing. >> okay. >> i'm sorry. >> no. >> that's just our policy. so -- another opportunity however if you know here is the way it goes. guys. appellates and permit holders y'all live next to each other. you have to go home every -- general speech. here we go again, folks. you know you gotta go home and be in a home where the vibes are good and you life your neighbors. is thamentd be my hope. what the opportunity of a

continuance also does is that you all can hear what happened tonight. you know consider the silv natures of the things we can't handle tonight the appellate raised. we can't it is not in our jurisdiction. but prevents provides you the opportunity of a cooling off period. to talk to each other and see how can you resolve this issue and gives you you both the opportunity to get clear feedback on this item. which is clear ambiguous. you know you are both right. it is the law sometimes is ambiguous. i think it gives you i think i know this continuance gives you this opportunity even though it

is based on getting more definitive feedback from dbi at their suggestion. pointing that out. and i would like would not like to live next to somebody itches at war with. ruins the zen of the neighborhood. so. are there motions on the table. commissioner trasvina. >> on your left point to under score it. we were supposed to have another item tonight that was continued. it was contentious. there were neighbors surrounding neighbors petitioning. everybody take to our meeting and not on our agenda. i understands it was resolved. so -- when we do hope and in the best of all spirit of the city

of san francisco niches resolve matters together. i want to echo president swig's view that matters can be resolvedeen while they are pending in front of us. >> yep. >> so. i will stay on my motion of a continuance to yen 10. all parties are available. mr. green assures he can get solid feedback. you all have another month and a half to see if you can w out the civil part. i hope you do. it irrelevant works it is a good medicine. so i would like to put forth that motion for a vote, please. >> okay. we have a motion and you want to include 2 prongs to opinion from dbi on requirement whether to repair the stair case and the per vs an opportunity to work

together on a solution? wonderful motion. thank you very much. >> okay. so on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> thank you. we will see you january 10th and thank you. and mr. green helpful to provide us that opinion the thursday prior to the hear to post it and everyone knows coming in the hearing. >> sure. >> great >> thank you. >> thank you..

>> (music).

>> the ferry building one of san francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. >> one of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how young the city we are. and nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. there was a small spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that

will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san francisco. and then the gold rush happened. by 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life. >> by 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when you look at a map of san francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is those streets started off in

extremely long piers. but by 1875 they know they needed more so the ferry building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the ferry building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the trams came to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bond issue was passed for $600,000. to build a new ferry building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san francisco they thought that was a grand ferry building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose

a young aspiring architect and in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and killed. but it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and mission street up to nob hill and the fisherman's

area. and then the earthquake hit in 190 six the ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. and 80 percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two weeks after the earthquake kind

of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gave them to chance to show how electrical cars and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in 1950 and people didn't realize how much of a community center the ferry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever

there was a war like the filipino war or world war two had a parade on market street and the ferry building would have banners and to give you an idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after the earthquake

and 22 different ferry boats to alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had mask mandates and anyone caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and san francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away. >> the way the ferry building

was originally built the lower level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out and central stairway of the building that is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the ferry building and the embarcadero on market street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have san francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world

and the pacific we need the iron that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. and automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed

having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now another way of getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having a purpose. >> what happened in the 40 and 50's because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a world trade center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall towers a trade center in new

york but a tower in between that was a part of ferry building and completely impractical. after the cars the tower administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. so they had an intrastate free plan the plan for major freeway systems to go throughout san francisco. and so the developers came up with the bay bridge and worked their way along embarcadero. the plans were to be very, very efficient for that through town he once the san francisco saw had human services agency happening 200 though people figure out city hall offender that the embarcadero free was dropped and

we had the great free to no where. which cut us off from the ferry building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the free. and that was the renaissance of ferry building. >> that land was developed for a new ferry building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didn't want- that was when a plan was developed for the liquor store. >> the san francisco ferry

building has many that ups and downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing and after the earthquake had a shove of adrenaline to revise the waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the future and feel that by making a reliable ferry system once the ferry building will be there to surface. >>

>> it is one of the first steps families and step to secure their future and provide a sense of stability for them and their loved ones. your home, it is something that could be passed down to your children and grandchildren. a asset that offers a pathway to build wealth from one generation to the next. and you need to complete estate plan to protect the asisets. your home, small business, air looms and more. you and so many communities,

black, indigenous, latino and asian worked so hard to make yours but estate plans could be costly and conversations complex proud to partner to bring free and low cost estate plans to san franciscans. by providing estate plans we are able to keep the assets whole for our families, prevent displacement, address disparities and home ownership and strengthen the cultural integrity of the city. working with local non profit organizations and neighborhood groups bringing the serveess to you and community, to workshops focused on estate planning and why it's important. >> i'm 86 years old and you do need a trustee. you need a will and put who ever you want in charge of it. >> that's why i wanted to be here today. that is why one of the first steps i took when become assessor recorder is make sure we have a

partnership to get foundational funding to provide these resources to community. but even more important is our connection to you and your homes and making sure we know how to help you and how to protect them. >> if you don't have a living trust you have to go through probate and that cost money and depending on the cost of the home is associated the cost you have to pay. that could be $40 thousand for a home at that level. i don't know about you, but i don't $40 thousand to give up. >> (indiscernible) important workshop to the community so we can stop the loss of generational wealth and equity and maintain a (indiscernible) >> why are estate plans important? we were just talking before we started the program, 70 percent of black americans do not scr a will in place. >> as mentioning being in community we had a conversation with a woman who paid

$2700, $2700 just for revocable trust. what we are talking about today are free or low cost estate plans that are value between 3,000 to $3500. free or low cost meaning free, or $400 if you make above $104 thousand a year, and capped larger then that amount. because we want to focus on black and brown households, because that's whether the need is, not only in san francisco, not only the bay area but the region as well. and, >> i was excitesed to see the turn out from the western addition and bayview and want to make sure we cover all the different steps from buying a home to making sure homes stay within the family. >> work with staff attorneys to receive these free and low cost complete estate plans that include a living trust, will, financial power of attorney, and health directive. >> that's why it is so important to make these resources and this

information accessible. so we can make sure we are serving you and your families and your generations and your dreams. >> we insure the financial stability of san francisco, not just for government, but for our communities. >> on behalf of the office of assessor recorder, i'm thankful for all the support and legal assistance they have given that makes the estate planning program a realty for you in san francisco and are thank all the community partners like san francisco housing development corporation, booker t washington center and neighborhood leaders and organizations that help families and individuals realize their dreams of building wealth in san francisco from one generation to the next. to learn more about this program e-mail inquiries at har

>> there is a lot of unique characteristics about visitation valley. it is a unique part of the city. >> we are off in a corner of the city against the san francisco county line 101 on one side. vis station valley is still one of the last blue color neighborhoods in san francisco. a lot of working class families out here. it is unusual. not a lot of apartment buildings. a lot of single family homes. >> great business corridor. so much traffic coming through here and stopping off to grab coffee or sandwich or pick up

food before going home. >> a lot of customers are from the neighborhood. they are painters or mechanics. they are like blue color workers, a lot of them. >> the community is lovely. multi-racial and hopefully we can look out for each other. >> there is a variety of businesses on the block. you think of buffalo kitchen, chinese food, pork buns, sandwich. library, bank of america with a parking lot. the market where you can grab anything. amazing food choices, nail salons. basically everything you need is here. >> a lot of these businesses up and down leland are family owned. people running them are family. when you come here and you have an uncle and nephew and go across the street and have the guy and his dad. lisa and her daughter in the dog

parlor and pam. it is very cool. >> is small businesses make the neighborhood unique. >> new businesses coming. in mission blue, gourmet chocolate manufacturing. the corridor has changed and is continuing to change. we hope to see more businesses coming in the near future. >> this is what is needed. first, stay home. unless it is absoluteliness scary. social distancing is the most important step right now to limit spread of virus. cancel all nonessential gather everythings. >> when the pandemic litly land avenue suffered like other corridors. a few nail salons couldn't

operate. they shut down. restaurants that had to adapt to more of a take out model. they haven't totally brought back indoor seating. >> it is heartbreaking to see the businesses that have closed down and shut because of the pandemic. >> when the pandemic first hit it got really slow. we had to change our hours. we never had to close, which is a blessing. thank god. we stayed open the whole time. >> we were kind of nervous and anxious to see what was going to come next hoping we will not have to close down. >> during covid we would go outside and look on both sides of the street. it looked like old western town. nobody on the street. no cars. >> it was a hard eight or nine months. when they opened up half the people couldn't afford a haircut.

>> during that time we kept saying the coffee shop was the living room of the valley. people would come to make sure they were okay. >> we checked on each other and patronized each other. i would get a cup of coffee, shirt, they would get a haircut. >> this is a generous and kind community. people would be like i am getting the toffee for the guy behind me and some days it went on and on. it was amazing to watch. we saw a perfect picture of community. we are all in this together. >> since we began to reopen one year later, we will emerge stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> when we opened up august 1st. i will not say it was all good.

we are still struggling due to covid. it affected a lot of people. >> we are still in the pandemic right now. things are opening up a little bit. it is great to have space to come together. i did a three painting series of visitation valley and the businesses on leland. it felt good to drop off the paintings and hung them. >> my business is picking up. the city is opening up. we have mask requirements. i check temperatures. i ask for vaccination card and/or recent test. the older folks they want to feel safe here. >> i feel like there is a sense of unity happening. >> what got us through the pandemic was our customers. their dogs needed groomed, we have to cut their nails so they don't over grow. >> this is only going to push us

forward. i sense a spirit of community and just belief in one another. >> we are trying to see if we can help all small businesses around here. there is a cannabis club lounge next to the dog parlor to bring foot traffic. my business is not going to work if the business across the street is not getting help. >> in hit us hard. i see a bright future to get the storefronts full. >> once people come here i think they really like it. >> if you are from san francisco visit visitation valley to see how this side of the city is the same but different.

good evening. everybody. we'll get started. [inaudible]. good evening i'm manny i come from the navajo tribes tonight i will be the master of ceremonies throughout tonight's recognition. it is an honor for mow to do this land acknowledgment. i think i thank our relatives here in the land of the ramaytush ohlone to do this for you we acknowledge we are on the unseed home land of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of san francisco peninsula. as stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions the ramaytush ohlone community have never cdst