>> good evening welcome to the february upon 7 meeting of board of appeals. president lopez will be the officer and joined by vice president lemberg. rick wig and john trasvina. eppler is absent. also jen hoover who will provide needed legal add video vice. alec and i'm julie the board's executive director. we'll be joined from the city departments that will present before the board. up front corey teeth za with planning. kevin, chief building inspector. javier, construction permit

supervisor with public works. and sarah madeline director of policy and public affair san francisco rec and park department. >> brian, planner with rec and park department and also haba cornenberg from the sfmta. board guide lines are as follows. request you turn off all electronics. no eating or drinking. permit holders and respondents given 7 minutes to present and 3 minute for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties submit comments within the period. time may be upon limited to one or 2 if the agenda is long or large vol um speakers. mr. longwail give you a warning

30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes to grant panally. if you have questions about a rehearing or schedule e mail the board staff. public access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv is broadcasting live and the ability to receive comment for each item on today's agendaful sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. to watch it on tv go to sfgovtv channel 78. note that tell be rebrought friday at tower p.m. public commencement in 3 ways. in person, zoom, go to the website and click on hearings and click on the zoom link. we can accommodate 500 people on zoom f. there is a controversial

item encouraged to attend in person in the event we reach capacity. provide comment by phone. and sfgovtv is broadcasting and strolling the phone number and access instructions on the b. screen if you are watching. block your number when call nothing dial star 67 then the phone number. you will have 1 to 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda. we will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. there is a delay with proceedings and that is broadcasted. people call nothing turn off volume or there is interference.

if the zoom meeting have an disability accommendation make requested in the chat function. note we'll take public comment first from those who are present in the hearing room. note this if our room reaches full capacity the over flow is in the north light court. can be watched on television. if you wish to comment come back and up lineup in the hallway in front of room 416. now we will swear in or affirm all who intend to testify. anybody may speak without an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight.

raise your right hand and say, i dom do you scare or affirm the testimony be the truth? >> okay. thank you. if you are a participate you are not speak put your zoom on mute. so we will go to item one. upon general public combhenlt this is an opportunity for anyone hold like to peek in the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. we'll move on to item 2. commissioner comment and questions. >> commissioners, comments or questions to evening? >> mr. trasvina. the presence of large number of people in the room and extend my appreciation for all of you. this adds to our process. it strengthens our work and

integrity of the decisions this are made. we appreciate you being here and may be a long night but that's why we signed up for public upon service. >> thank you. public comment on this item? raise your hand? item 3. adoption of minutes from january 21 meeting. commissioners. questions or do i have a motion? motion >> we have a motion to adopt the minutes from january 31st on this motion president lopez. >> aye >> trasvina. >> aye >> lemberg. >> aye. jot minutes are adopted. now to item 4. this is appeal number 23-067 mihal emberton and public works

property 201 ashto not issuance on december first of 23 to mihal of a public works orddenial for sidewalk enkroeshment. all encroaching will be deconstructd and removed from the public right of way the applicant did not provide updated plan. reduction of the fence sight 3 feet of street light pole and box. and 3 feet traveled trees and fence and the removal of the 10 by 10 foot cedar in the propane fire table. plans need to show all in the right-of-way the street light and box, trees. location of pavers and land scaping and atered location of felonies. we'll hear from the praelt first. welcome. you have 7 minutes >> president lopez i printed up

copies i wanted to add to the record. >> honor to meet with you together my wife and i own 201 ashton avenue on behalf of my family and community we thank you for your time tonight.

we thank dpw ensure our discussion today is complete. during or time we will present facts to correct the 7 mistakes present in the the brief. facts prove that the homeowners owner the 9 feet of our property next to the sidewalk. it is undisputed fact recorder document the property 115 if he felt dpw agrees. dpw draws 115 foot dimension ending 9 feet short of the property 39 is a mistake of fact t. is a fact the 115 foot extend if it is back fence to the edge of the sidewalk measured on our 2017 fence repair permit application here. the fact ratified twice and the planning department. it homeowner and all terrace

homeerns own 9 feast property next to the sidewalk. dpw claims the intention of the city was to have 15 foot sidewalks as neighborhood temperature is a fact the sidewalks in the neighborhood are 6 feet wide. >> third. dpw climbs the lake view mixed use neighborhood to the east 15 foot sidewalks the sidewalks in the terrace must have 9 feast unpaved sidewalk to match this is the mistake of fact and law. use and purchase 2 neighborhoods are different the lake view bloshgs mixed use. businesses, school, church, shelter, apartment buildings and some homes. the engle side block have only homes. second the width of the sidewalks does not change the width of sidewalk in a different neighborhood in 1910 contracted

by a company to design the 148 acres new residence park with 792 house lots that ensure light, air and sun. . with gas, sue and water connections placed within lot next to sidewalks prevent street excavated. with concrete curbs and with no house within 14 feet of another. banning stores and businesses and mull pull unit businesses in thes and houses. [reading fast] dpw's brief fails to discuss the structure within the property along ash ton and hallaway the distinction by the

map is in 19 twoot company reserved easement for city puc access to the water pipe this is legal proof that the homeowner owns the 9 feast property. furthermore if the city's intention have a 9 foot unpaved sidewalk in the terraces the stealed have obtained an ease am. dpw agree there is is no right-of-wayise am on our property. dpw claims the city can take possession of 9 feet of property to create an unpaved process. this is a mistake of fact and law. california code of civil procedure 325 states without judgment or decree the city cannot claim overship protected by enclosure and that is cultivated or improved by the

owner both here. and the 57 public signatures of support and 35 letters of support provide evidence we have improved our property. 92 public comments prove the public benefit of the efforts. >> dpw mentioned the concern must be 3 feet with the street tree well and property fence for wheel chair use. path of travel will question has not been answered. union 28, 22. we sent an e mail to dpw showing the didn't is over 41 inches. meets and exceeds the 36 inch requirement. dpw mentions current fence does not allow a cloerns for steet light maintenance. the public utility easement in 1922 provides full access to the light from the easement and

easement puc use today for maintenance and upgrades. >> based on the facts of the case we request the board to declare that dpw abused discretion and acted outside of jurisdiction by claiming a right-of-way that don't exist. to extort property and considerations and prevent finalization of our permit. we hope this board will guide dpw to issue a new decision acknowledging dpw errored. [reading fast] and easements and preventing finalization of fence repair permit. thank you. >> thank you. question from commissioner

trasvina. thank you for your testimony. i'm trying to reconcile different parts of the material you provided and described facts prove that home ordinance own 9 feet of properties next to the sidewalk. what i want to know, on the issue related to your property, are there other lots that would face the same legal issue? of having the city claim right-of-way or the city >> all the home in engleside terrace. >> photograph you have on page 8, which shows map of engle side terraces that, >> correct >> hallaway. ocean. >> i don't know ocean but our

business is ocean but would ashton and hallaway and the other streets in engle side. >> decision on this appeal might affect a lot of others beyond your own property. >> yes. i believe it would affect all the single families homes there. >> thank you. >> no further questions you can be seated >> we'll hear from the street use and mapping. >> good evening. i'm with public works street use

and mapping. il start with a brief summary of key dates with permits. the permit application was accepted by public works in december of 2021, 14th. a month later the applicant was noticed that modifications were required to be approved. and move forward with review. updated plans were not provided and in june 2022, the applicant was notified application inactive status if updated plans were not received by july first of 22. december of 23 the applicant was denied the public work permit after consulting with the city attorney. >> moving to the engle side map, we agree well is 115 parcels feet by 50.5 feet ashton is 70

feet wide per the map. and hallaway is 60 feet. got trimmed off in the presentation. and this is a distance from property to property. and -- it includes sidewalk and roadways. there would be 15 feet of sidewalk on either side and the 40 foot roadway on ashton street. the sidewalk was officially legislated by the board of supervisors and 1910. and 15 feet on ashton street. and records indicate that the sidewalk on hallaway was built by legislative before that. we don't have the legislation. the 15 feet -- sidewalk is shown in what is the purple air outside of the property. and the dashed line is per map.

and on the map is located of the structures in 1912. so it really has nothing to do with the right-of-way other than the structure locations. so. the again moving on the next slide the black lines the solid black lines are the property lines and moving on here it is we do show the property lines with the green hatch the area where the property line lays. the back of curve is where the red line is and per public works sidewalks are measured from the back to the property line which would be 15 feet in this case. the sidewalks could be paved or not remains the right-of-way and the part of the official sidewalk.

could it shift? yes. but everything beyond the green area is encoachments of the right-of-way. moving to what we found in the review the line this is angle of the camera here and an estimate where the property line would lie. this is looking north on ashton street. to the right would -- be encroaching of the public right-of-way. 3 feet in height and line of sight issues this public w system concerned with where

there is traffic and vehicles can't see all the way to a sidewalk. we trier 3 foot fence or let. >> hallaway is similar we -- on

we never received plans showing the clearance with the tree well and the fence. and this point. you know that remained a concern as far as cloerns to the fenceful concerns for the fence here if you look at the bottom picture the fence covers the crosswalk seen on the upper picture. that's an issue create federal it is lower, you know there are higher chance of seeing someone in a wheel chair. 10 by 10 and gas fire table and right of way for personal gainful the puc street light

needs to be available and 3 foot path of travel. updated times were not received and per conversations with the attorney it was time to deny the permit. it is public works requires 3 feet or less for all encroaching fences. encoaching.

in private property it is city planning. in the brief. there were photos of the before and the after. >> yes. >> and the before was again i deposit have the benefit of measurements in the analysis you

provided on photos the fence this was there which was an in the fence. see through was in the same position and encoaching fence? why would surface why you in? why after all the years that old fence was there for a long time. why now? why now. and going throughout review process and energyd that than i are touching the right-of-way. when fences are in good shape if they were upon original fence we would issue a permit with the condition when modified have to

assist current requirements >> triggering was touching the fence. so in the there has not been a formal survey. and for when we have i mean you said, right. that's okay. the responsibility of i can't remember, somebody. to -- pay for a formal survie to -- proof there are -- in this

case this is the gospel and virtue of the historical mapping. where does the better than fall on who needs to prove where the property line to a survey >> when the city has everything showing it is lining up? it is on the the owner of the property can file a records of survey or if than i want to go to more and show all point there is is an @a survey. the alta would showed report line and show everything all of the utilities and the sidewalk

locations. would be on the maps n. this case, the better than owner if the applicant for the permit a survey should have been paid for and approve in that case and that fashion, it would have been a third party or survey o posed to there is really no survey and only a survey can tell prove the truth >> if the applicantmented prove their point then submission of a survey would have proved it.

when we're lack here. the lack of a survey which would be the responsibility of the property owner. >> correct. >> thanks. >> commissioner lemberg. thank you. so to follow up on a question commissioner was saying, what triggers the prosecute vision of @a survey? >> the trigger would be up to the landowner.

is there a situation the city would measure? >> not when the records are matching.

i think i know when you are trying to say or understand what i are sayingch >> so00 auto9 feet -- is part of

the sidewalk. the official is 15 feet as was 6 feet. remainder. how do we condition firm the map. this it is a recorded map from 1912. and -- there is a thin 64 special 6. this thin line is survey monument line. in this case the 64 feet to the left of the line and 6 feet to

the right. and combine to 70 feet. the fixed right of way width. that does not shrink. the official sidewalk is part of within this right of way. the green lines the hatched area in the wrong place that's where it would clarify it. a survey was done and completed and showed a showed a distance of 115 feet and the sidewalk that would change the city's

position. you have said this and i want to confirm sounds like the big are issues are the guide wire and cut out for the utility pole. i understand why those are important. but is that -- you know are those the 2 big concerns. >> it is one of the concerns for safety. the closer you move to the street the more it blocks line of site. that would be one of the safety, the other we are concerned with is the gas line. they would be private and gas line.

i want to ask the same question i asked. are there other thanning property owners other lots that are in the same situation? >> yes. there would be ownership there are other encoaching lots in the same situation. public works does in the tag the lots. there are 3 -- key or primary reasons why it would be triggered. what trickered this one. joy believe a come mrinlt for something else on the property. for music >> read the record. >> for music. when i see here i will try to ask questions rather then and there debate you. is it wrong to look at somebody

complained about round music and this report earn described privatizing -- the priorities resulted in that situation. >> i would say that the review of the encroachment application when triggers it look at every part of the code this applies to it. iot question of safety. is it -- always unsafe or because encroaching fence. >> because its encroaching

felonies. you imagine putting your hand up to your face close will block out vision. all fences to that are encroaching to be 3 feet or less. is at this time issue whether whether encroaching or not if it were not encroaching in the same spot. you would not have jurisdiction. >> right >> okay. commissioner swig? commissioner trasvina triggered mow to ask this question. i'd like this asked of mr. teague if you are not available to answer it. when there is nov, in my

experience does that not -- stimulate stuff? >> yes. >> so if a building has an nov on it, mr. birmingham goes out and investigates it. sees more things that are wrong. does that stimulate an action. and found. that's wrong. is that the action. >> this does happen. a 311 call. or an inspector checking dbi may

be out there for whatever reason and there is encroachment or possible encroach and want strig are this. >> the circumstance of another complaint and nov and event this creates the city going out encoachment here by the fact i worked for the city. i believe that's what happened. what's the cure. we know we what the point is tha we have a fence ruled illegal. and a fence illegal it

encroaches what is the we will fwoet this pointful what's the cure if there is encroachment if there is a violation. they have to be brought down to 3 feet. the fire tabled have to be removed. we are not saying. >> i'm sorry. persian gulf well come in. >> yes. correct. commissioners. >> thank you. your questions or swig's

question prompts another for me. that is, in this area in dispute. is the city's position belongs to the city or the homeowner. jot city. for decades disrepair. with the bad fence. i walkd that block. the testimony from the mac system this this homeowner has made tremendous improvements. so i wonder. has the city done anything to -- to address the problems that existed over the years. >> as far as notice to repairs? or -- well. the records said a 4 foot fence the difference now it is a fence

that has design. people like temperature before it was a mess. why that was the city's fence when has the city done to -- full fit responsibilities to that property? >> again, the city does in the go had we received 311 call. fence in the right-of-way and damaged. we would have sent an inspector out. a notice of violation or repair and worked with the landowner is. >> we don't go are novelty going from block to block looking for the types of situations and tagging them throughout the city. the city's property. why it. >> so the city is not -- doing much to maintain the property.

>> no. if were just landscaping it would be minor sidewalk encroachment that would be the end of it. the issue he were like -- >> tell meet city is the owner >> city is the owner wield allow a sidewalk encroach familiarity they did land scaping. we could pave it. people don't like if it is a land scaped area. >> >> thank you. commissioner swig? no further questions. >> thank you. >> we will hear from planning department. do than iment to weigh in? >> good evening. president lopez. corey teague planning.

a party to the appeal. it is brief i will respond the applicant made a statement that dbi and planning certified the location of the property line. we have acted on applications in the past as representatived at the time. representtation are the responsibility of an applicant and planning department does not have the duty to confirm or certify property lines. we have active enforce and want open variance requests on holds so had situation can be resolves. and can be finalizes so we can move forward. want to be clear have a role in this specific issue. regarding the location of the property line versus the right-of-way. >> and to add-on to the other

conversations we work with dpw and the sense there are lots of blocks the public right of way extends deeper away from the street and behind the paved sidewalk. from the eye may be a front yard. on paper it is public right-of-way we see that a bit. people fwhld that area and required get permits from public works. and then the planning enforcement action for us start in the upon 2017. i don't know the source of that not sure why that case was opened don't have that information with me the other piece of information that's related the conversation in the planning code. if you want to put a fence in the required front setback.

the max hide for solit is 3 feet. it is 75% opened and front set become is 3 feet that is all i have for this case. >> thank you >> dbi? >> there was a complaint and the inspector this went out a new fence built if he did write a notice of violation. this point it is on hold until dpw signs off. so we are on hold until a decision is reasoneders.

whether or not it is legal. >> i don't see questions you can be seat. now public comment is there anyone whments to provide comment on this item? samsung sm? go ahead.

we are not on that item we are talking about ashton. loretta jones. i imagine there is the city believes that you know there is a piece of their property this looks like is my property this . is why i'm asked i had a quick question a survey might have settle third degree early of my question is i'm not understanding how that would be because if a survey will use the city documents and it says that

and smvens talking about the fence was in disrepair and this is the city's property. my question if i'm in that situation and you know it is the city did see it as property and you have to replace it will the city pay for this. if i need to do that? because it think its is the property so if it says you have to fix it. will that city pay for that labor and costs? >> that's my question. >> this is not question and answer it is public meant. upon i'veed like to say all

those little people upon houses the um shelters this go along taraval for people to stand in when the weather is bad. block the public safety of crossing the street.

is there further public comment. we will move to rebuttal the appellate. i wanted the board to know that after the case began and the city said we wanted to you get a permit to repair the fence we did apply for a fence repair permit then a variance to allow the heist fence and planning did, prove to allow it.

additional low. . keeps mentioning the gas line it is a permitted line it was permit in the 2015 and does not extend to the 9 feet that dpw is talking about. it goes to a table and the table to the 9 feet they are talking about. thank you. >> i want to clear it with you to make surure willing. are you willing and able to hire a survey or? to allow for an answer on this. >> yes. the facts and the data and not sweared by biechls you are able

to do this. >> i would hope that we would. i don't know the cost of that. thank you. >> hear from streets and mapping. i have no further comments. i will not let you. the question raised in public comment about -- surveys use the parameters by the city. it is am that the case or the survey or take a neutral position and do a scientificly measured metric in consideration of multiple dynamics they will

use a private land surveyor. both historic and present. and use the deeds to the property. the check with title companies and easements on the property. than i will review the property. and then go out to the survey monuments out in the field and measure. any property. throughout the city.

arbitrary to fixed. program terse. >> correct. regardless of any other condition where a fence was built. the plants have grown. those monuments really get you back to a middle ground. the real center of reality. is this. >> that's when you think we should work with. yes. that would be the options. i made it ambiguous is it the -- option. if they want to proceed.

of developing met tricks and how. so what stuck with me you have the survey monuments since beginning of time and those are -- those are the -- measurements nobody moved them from the beginning of time and the maps created and everything has been everything established. is that true? >> correct. and when we make our -- decision around this. >> okay, thanks

>> no further questions. >> thank you. >> anything from planning. okay. >> commissioner this is matter is submitted. >> commissioners, i'm going to open up to everybody's views starting with you, commissioner swig. in just in a moment. i think given we have not had a ton of the permits. and questions in the left couple of years i would like to turn to city attorney's office. to help us frame the questions and standards with the type of decision before us. the issue is the -- public works order confirmed the denial of an application for a minor sidewalk

encroachment. a permit for sidewalk encroachment is governed by public works code 723. there were questions whether this would affect other neighbors. i don't believe that it would. what before this board is the issuance of encroachment permit. and public works determine third degree i permit is required because according to city records. the land is owned by the city. and so this board could -- grant the appeal and over turn the order denying the encroachment. the board could allow or it could deny the appeal and find public works made the protect decision. when the board has and permit for encrotchment.

>> thank you. >> with that commissioner swig. i'd like to ask public works to stand up again. >> and what were the, elements. there is access to the street lights. the purg well have to be removed. we could, will be the -- i think

in terms and continues the issuance of the permit consideration of lowering the fence to 4 feet. move purg laand fire table away from the affected area or -- and then providing access to the guide wire and the light xoel need to be sure that there was proper clearance with the tree wells and the fence. >> right. >> so. this is where i'm going. this is could be done in -- with those terms and continues. >> permit -- new plan that

includes -- those things you will listed. >> cool. >> get there by upholding the appeal and issuing the permit in consideration of a new plan that would consider dpw. fair and simple this is reasonable. and does not affect other property owners. with the requirements. and property owner did not pursue nothing was done.

and owner has if we were to go. said, yes. >> permit is -- cocaine realized the terms. familiar the baseod this list of things that >> terms and conscience special requirements without affecting. it can be done.

based on what i'm remembering. the city assets. inclined to go this. unnecessary, the procedure in any motion of similarity if we had a deck, for example. and okay we will approve -- am that would you believe how we do things. right >> the what i'm prescribing is in different then and there

standard operating procedure. we are not singling out this property owner with anything other than to say you can get it done and we issuance of a permit with plan this is reflect the list of items that dpw says and -- that will be commissioners my recommendation. my -- position is different because i signal this is. if a new survey were done and the survey presented different results then and there what the city has been presenting. the encroachment permit may not be necessary.

grant a continuance to permit the property owner to -- conduct a survey or professional survey by a third party. and present those to the city and to off set the continued hearing. it may circumvent this issue this you were talking about. when the surveyor does measurements based on the monuments. i know that i -- i have been working in and around real estate for a time now. and surveys and property descriptions are photocopy friday hundred year source over and over again. certainly account impact the rights of appellate but

potential low you mentioned the makered may have the same issue. you know inaccurate it is possible when the neighborhood was designd and record in the 1910 auchlt properties had -- inaccurate sidewalk measurements. the urgent part of this i think we can -- give the appellates time. how soon is available. no one.

thank you. i -- agree with the disposition that vice president lemberg is suggesting. i also don't quite understand how we can say we will recognize the city's determination of the right-of-way in dispute and not have it affect the property owners. commissioner swig said this support owner is not singled out. then every property owner similarly situated is at risk of losing per of their property

that they had in and priest people have for handled years! where hemorrhaging money and spending it unanimously the neighbors -- i think we have a 298 pages of comments from neighbors saying this is improve am over what was there. anybody who lived there and benefit long to the city where was it for the hundred years to take care of it.

i think we should have a continuance and it should be to resolve the issue and -- if it requires the supervisors getting involved and saying, for people when are look back to the 1910 map if you are in the same situation the city's principle treat everybody the same f. this owner of 201 is at risk and so is everybody else. nooim to the prepared rule against it. if this is a prospect you see for all the property owners. the city should figure out give back the report. improve the corner. to the extent they have.

and end up with you are privatizing. this area. . not, this is her home and yes they have improved it. by the department and the potential this could affect many home ordinance. look at this situation and if is t is a situation there are other remedies and actions the city to aid departments. to not analyze and not make a homeowner in a different situation than they were. thank you. before i go. i had worn question for you.

thank you. worn thing this is in the clear to me -- if you went the direction of -- >> >> no longer boost 3 feet threshold. still face the question and in terms of the distance from the tree well or is that upon a noncompliant fence. they have to show it is a 3 foot clearance.

the fence was rebuilt in my mine i see 2 spate, i see us having to grapple with the questions dliniated by mrs. huber focused on the per mitting question and the property in question. i know that the property does in the exist on an island there are other -- you know interested

property owners one whom we heard from this evening. i think those are spate questions. i would this is one of the areas from my fellow commissioners we agendize manage we learned about whether to the attention of other representatives at dpw or the supervisor.

every city black to inspect that structures are in compliance with the city's records. that's at question resource as well. and if it means that this property you know -- with whatever path it took to get to the city if that means an opportunity to clarify not just for the applicant butt neighborhood i think that can being positive. commissioner swig. i said before i support the motion. to -- post ponent decision tonight. subject of a survey.

but i just want to make sure that we are characterizeing, because with respect to commissioner trasvina nobody is steeling nothing from anybody. the. property owner is not being asked to the property owner is being asked to comply to the statute. statute is clear has been verbalized tonightful the present owner can maintain the size of their property but cannot main taint use of certain elements of that property. which are not in compliance with the city statute. which is why i asked dpw what has to change. so. if there is a movement of per

gla. the lowering of the fence side and there is access to 2 city services happened to be a guide wire and -- phone pole the status quo is retained. nobody loses is being land is not taken back. adjustments to that land to be in compliance with city statute system what is happening. and -- so -- and with regard to the other property ordinance the same holds true. and if there is an nov or an event that creates the need to review a similar situation, a property owner is not going to have the size of the property taken away from them. however but based on nov a

property owner may be requirements to adjust the use of the land which they had been using for a handled yeeshs. i think we have to tread light low in our accusation busy that. i agree with you in that how can you after a hundred years we can't use it. that is not the case. i think that the case is that -- there is a compliance issue. somebody looked at that issue for a reason and it was music. tough luck. and the city is not taking away the use of that land but saying you have to adjust the use. i don't think that is significant. i'm not the property owner and

fiwas i would be pissed off. we'll timed out if the survey -- there is property owner is using everything to compliance or noncompliance we will decide or not to require the property owner to submit new plans in compliance to within compliance to city requirements. that's all. >> i'm prepared support your motion. commissioner trasvina. i'm aware of the time and have an agreement. but i want to say that your description commissioner swig assumes the validity of the city's position.

the date i'm looking at the clearest one and then please confirm april third looks open? currently? so i want to check to make sure they are available on that date before i propose a motion. >> assuming that a full survey can be done. >> correct. >> that's 2 months from now.

it is february. i don't have our calendar past april >> april 17th. may 15. may 15? are the parties available then? so i will move to continue this matter to -- may 15th meeting. to allow the appellate to -- conduct a private third party survaft property and present their findings to us at that time. or in advance. okay >> do you want to also require that it is the survey performed by a company that -- meets industry standards?

california licensed surveyor. may 15th may be they submit the survey 2 third degrees prior by may second? and then dpw should have the opportunity to respond to this survey and they would need to respond the thursday prior to the hearing may 9. file with the county surveyor office. the land survey. >> so. what does this mean. pays someone wrchl and submit the file >> dot private survey and submit it to the county. >> submit mean record. >> tell be recorded. >> by the appellate or the city. why by the appellate. >> okay. that's prerequisite to the city? >> once the land surveyor sets points they have to.

>> okay. >> so -- you can do this. you will get the survey and survey by licensed surveyor and file it with the city. >> okay. you will turn it to us by 4:30 p.m. on may second? of can you approach, please. dp also caveat this is impossible of course you can come back. reset the date. >> right. >> that was my question. let the staff at the board know and they will help us get new dates.

a motion it ton may 15th so there can be a surveyor for a survey and file it with upon the county. county surveyor office. . and then that survey would be due may second. and public works submit a brief responding to that. double spaced. i talk to you to o that motion president lopez >> aye >> trasvina. >> aye >> swig. >> aye >> that motion sxaers seeow may 15th. thank you. moving on to victims 5a, b, c. >> property is upper great

highway. between lincoln way and sloat and streets. this is an appeal the first of and speak is the appellate for 62. geoffrey moore for 64 and charles perkins for 65. challenging the planning code issuance. commission issuance of coastal zone permit. issued december first 2023. i'm sorry. november 19th 23 to the san francisco rec and parks departmentful coastal zone permit section 330 temporary restriction to the upper great poi highway for promenade on weekends and highways.

we'll -- the city attorney. please. >> i want to say that we will hear public upon comet after the parties have presented their case and submitted rebuttals. >> so. we are waitoth city attorney. one moment. we'll hear from speak, first. you have 7 minutes. i lean, sunset action committee. speak. speak is 501 c 3 in 1970. speak advocated in the community for issues.

until 2 years ago the planning department had a planner chris kaern who retired. since planning noticing [inaudible] issues permits in error. consistency with the san francisco certified coastal program per program and planning code section 330.5.1b. coastal zone permit has 2 fatal problems. the permit is defective and two, the permit is not consistent with the local coastal programs by the coastal commission. the certified program has 4 components western shore line area plan. coastal zone review procedures. neighborhood/commercial rezoning and variance section of the code. western shore line can the land

use the other 3 are local coastal program requires a permit shall be approved only upon finings of fact establishing the project conforms to requirements and objectives of the coastal program. must conform and finding of fact must state it does with the entire local coastal program not just one component. that's the certified coastal zone review section 330.

on the left side of the slide you read when planning code 330.2d states. lovely coastal program shall be the san francisco western shore line plan and -- any of the implementation programs. the finding of fact is not consistent with the review component section 330.5.2. lands use plus 3. permit looks finding of fact stake the project informs to the objectives of local coastal

program the permit is defective on its face. the permit and the application are not consistent with the western shore line plan. and policy tw.1. it states. developed right of way the 4 lane straight highway with rescue rigzal trails the permit holder can see the project is not consistent with policy 2.1. there is no provision in the

local coastal program for partial consistency. in the appeal brief planning attempted to obscure the glaring defects with mislead language like the approved permit will maintain the greatest highway a 4 lane street. for more than half each week. fact check. opening the great highway for a partial week is not consistent with policy. unbalanced means in the consistent. the briefs conclusion states the project is consistent with the city's coastal projects.

many surfers drive and park and walk. the pir permit holder filed an appeal brief irrelevant. the brief fails to address the brief and states the project builds on the western shore line

area plan and permit holder climbs consistency with different plans the sfmta strategy plan. vision zero. rec and park and climate action plan. 91 of which are relevant to standard of review the standard of review is consistency with the requirements objectives of the local coastal program per planning code 330.5.1. coastal zone is defect and i have must be set aside on this basis. the permit and the application are clearly not consistent with the certified coastal program and nothing in the planning brief or permit holder brief changes it.

mr. moore. >> thank you. i'm here to request a coastal zone permit application and encourage good day log about environmental considerations. police take notice of the board of supervisors file 24065.

managed properly based on a funded permitted plan has been settled upon after full public disclosure and open dialogue. i have views there are risks with a sewage prushth. the occurrence when public records access impaired. exhibits 3 is the unanimous finding by the sunshine ordinance task force the disclosure requirements related the matter and the appellate itself were disregarded. local coastal program

established so needs and environmental impacts concerned balanced. coastal commission stated development may not commence until a development permit issued by the commission or a local government. and restricted government except when pursuant to the express term of the plan approved by the coastal commission. a local government may not have coastal zone jurisdiction the ccc delegation. exercise authority that has not been granted ever.

>> anywhere in the lct approved by the commission. ccc never given san francisco the authority to build things in the zone and after the fact say what they built is fine. >> it would be a conflict of interest for a city to do so. >> which portion and which are temp area. some not all is a pilot. permit application is saying we think we need to develop now to develop more later. ocean beach community member i urged folks to discuss and settle upon plans before subjecting our neighborhood to experiments. i don't believe the coastal act is designed to treat the coast like a dish of speculation. creating interum and unan likewised impairments there is

no express provision which defined how developments should be permitted and adjusted after the fact. thousandands of vehicles from one per of the zone to another impeding traffic flow in residential community. creating more e mission system in the good for the zone i asked the board to contract public

comment by peter paroley the nature of the vehicle miles traveled. increased recognized by the coastal commission a significant environmental concern. with extreme care when the development is proposed e range of motion zone. in my brief ocean beach tilt it is counter clock wide. and sand to the north. before approved there should be a review of e range of motion and managed to retreat principles. especially with respect to sewage processing infrastructure.

unclear low maked features disclosure found by a city agency itself to be insufficient. the permit sales there are material and unan likewised environmental issues inconsistent with the impairment retreat under the act. thank you for your attention. good evening. pretty simple question of lu. that's all we have. section 330 of the code says a permit cannot be approved if it does not conform with the program. that is all we are talking

about. not talking about what the city has been doing. we are not talking about what the city plans to do in the future. all we want to know is whether this project conforms with the coastal program. it does not. it is undisputed the shore line plan is a component of the program and the program. and -- policy 2.1 says that -- the great highway must be a for you lane straight highway. there is no exception for well can be maintained as a 4

lane how for half the week or a third of the week. when the great highway is clezed cars it is violation of the policy. other policy of the western shore line plan and 6.2 in -- the system the sand dunes at ocean beach. there is -- no dispute here that bringing all the people in close proximity to the dunes folks did not access the beach caused dub destruction and damage. they don't argue. we are working with mps.

granting of a permit is not permissible they should have worked this out before the project and made sure that -- there would not be dub damage. they didn't now seek beach access the most important. the luwe are dealing with impresses importance of public access to the beach. in section 30211 of the code. this is the noa project that is put nothing a new bus route to the beach that would be increase the beach access. or electrical vehicle charging stations so people come from points and enjoy the beach and not worry about running out of juice to get home.

not a situation we are puffing parking space on the highway itself allow people to get beach access in areas that typically they don't have real convenient access. traffic lanes open on the grit highway north and south listens and parking spaces on the of great highway to get greater beacharc sesz. not only we don't have greater beach access. we have the great highway the most director route for people

toarc sesz the areas from the north. the north western end of the city when want to go to the zoo. the beach all in the coastal zone when the highway is closed. they arearc sesz is impeded they go oust way neighborhood everneighborhood and traffic areas impedament toarc sesz to the coast. people from the south and bayview and neighborhoods who want to come and enjoyment beach by the cliff house. their access is impede. it is clear that both of the coastal act and the coastal

plan. protection of the environment and public safety. it looks to interests of the neighbors. i upon don't think anybody can say that when 15,000 cars are taken off the most fuel fortunate and direct route for traversing tw miles with sloat and lincoln and forced go to residential neighborhoods or kid are play and carers becoming out and fwt a 4 way intersection or diverting up to on high injury networks. yet that makes i don't think anybody can deny they are less safe when you tick the cars off the great highway the city's

safest 2 mile stretch in san francisco. no intersections or right turns or left that is where most of accidents happen. combat climate change as biden said. il stop nouchl this >> thank you a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your testimony. i have a question that you may or may not be the person to ask.

it is clear that you want the city's policy decision to be reversed. i'm not asking about that. procedurally can you describe what the city should do if we grant the appeal? >> they should opening statement great highway 24/7 tomorrow and then if they want to take a crack at a coastal permit. and demonstrate that -- the sand do you understand will not be impacted. demonstrate that -- the -- carbon e missions are not going to be increased. the streets will be safer. somehow i don't know how than i

will. ful beach access is improved when the highway is closed. had do you think the city should do going forward. you begin meet answer i was hope to get. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no further questions.

>> member's glasses are here. now the rec and p department. responding to 3 appeals they have 21 minutes. >> good evening. commissioners. i'm brian stockel a planner with rec and parks. and i'm joined by al and sarah from rec and park department and the sfmta. we worked with him and i'd like to see my minutes for him to

speak at this time i had a power point. we paused the time as well. i'm joel engardio i represent the great highway i oppose this appellate to the great highway pilot. we are a year and a half in a 3

year pilot that transform its to a park on the weekends. makes no sense to stop a pilot that is half done. i understand we will hear and have been hearing technical and procedural reasons for that. procedurals that lead to the pilot predate my time. what i speak to is common sense. a year and a half into a pilot you can't go back. the weekend park on the great highway become too popular. new york times named one of 52 places to visit for a changed world. thousands of families i'm not exaggerating, garth on the great highway the sunday before hall wean for a fun and safe daytime event where everyone degreeses up and hands out candy galore. i will go to the. now look at the photo you see the people last halloween and

here is thearial shot. and here is a closeup of the kids. so. who wants to tell these kids an issue means no more great haunt way. we celebrate holidays on the great highway on weekends. this space has become important garthing place for cultural holidays. looking at the autumn moon festival. look at the faces of the kids in the crowd. thank you very much pilot is bringing the community together and creating joy. who wants to tell these kids we are going to end the joy because the a did you wants disagreed about the property that started the pilot a year and a half ago. i want to showut faces of the great highway pilot program. here they are. the people in the photo are 2-90. they are all different back

grounds it brings joy. everyone here is garthed around a new park bench. bench gives seniors a place to rest and clear views to watch sun sets. some it might be a bench for the residents here the bench is a step to creating a transformational space in their lives. the photos demonstrate the ideal we put in our constitution through the coastal act. the 55 let expands access and let's people experience our coast and transformtive way and connects people in community of all ages. to discover and nurture long-term freeshgz everprieshgz for the land scape if this is not whale are supposed to be

doing what is? the people are upset bit joyful community experience we see in this moto they wanted to be a full time highway for cars. but they're tried to kill the pilot and go become to a highway for cars that was prop i. in november of 2022. prop i called for return to cars 24/7 on the great highway. voters given the option and prop i failed. 65% of san francisco voters said, no. to a full time highway for cars. and being a sunset 54% majority said no to a full time highway for cars.

angry tone and distain for the pilot program. for every angry comment i leave with you image. this is the face of pure joy and this is the face of the pilot this is appealed. please, stand on the side of joy and deny this appeal. thank you. rec and park you have 15 minutes. >> thank you. we are here to independent to the 3 appeals of the coastal zone permit for the great highway pilot. if you could put up the other presentation. or -- i can -- yea.

i will get it. >> we'll pause the time. computer. show the different jurisdictions and elements from lincoln way to sloat where the pilot takes place. from left to right we have the sunset neighborhood. just to the right of it is the lower great highway. the public work street.

and a 50 foot wide zone toward the ocean the noriega sea wall and sandy trail at this time right other dunes and ocean beach. the pilot by the coastal perimism in 2012 spur with city, state and federal and community partners developed the ocean beach master plan for adaptation and open space plan for the

issues at ocean beach. with the pandemic's arrival in 2020 the shelter in place instituted the great highway was converted to a promenade in april of 2020 under the emergency circumstances to provide people with place and social distancing. the upper great highway was a program nod. traffic calming by the sfmta in the streets notoriety great thoi have cars rerouted to sunset and speed humps and signs added to neighborhood streets.

confissionation that exists part of the pilot i will get to later. in november of 22, as the supervisor mention the prospect i about measure to restore access to the great highway and jfk drive defeated with 65% of voters lecting it maintain them. october of 23, a separate project allows the great hoyt ocean beach climate change project was approved by the rec

and park commission and the puc. this project eir was certified by the planning commission last fall. now a bit about the configuration of the pilot. what the area is the great highway project covers the segment lincoln and sloot and called the upper great highway. for the pilot it is configure in the 2 scheduled use periods. a promenade. the great highway is also used as a 4 lane vehicular roadway on weekdays starting at mondays 6 a.m. and ending 12 on friday.

public comment taken at that hearing. the permit appeald and we are here now with you in february at

the board of appeals. the process has been atypical. in light of the covid-19 pandemic. city and federal agencies the pihot developed between rec and p and sfmta. the puc and public works consulted. main taint roadway and facilities the the site. fire department and the sfmta work with rec and park to develop i gate design.

earlier rec and park staff in communication with coastal commission staff before and after the approval at the board and communicating with neighbors or service the pilot is 3 year study and project. any permit changes require an environmental review. coastal permit and approval of the board of supervisors. in other words. rec and p will be back if any changes are recommended.

milot garthing public feed badge surveys will be conducted spring and more is planned in 2025. and cordination like the climate change project as well as the san francisco institutes sunset resilience project locked at do you understand. expect to provide recommendation on the great highway the end of the pilot period inlet 2025. the climate action plan. western shore line area plan. it buildos this and policies out

lined in the general plan and open space. allowed theists use and enjoy a large water front open space wheel chair accessible. walking, biking and taking transit. 22-23 and average of near low half a 99 visited were made. on weekends. over the past 2 years the learning events averaged over 10,000 visitos event day.

i'd like to address the concerns raised by the appellates regarding the coastal permit. of the san francisco institute published dub management regarding the ocean beach do you understand this december. the study examince the beach dubs and had been at that time health and e range of motion and sand movement and how they are affected by sea level rise. and includes recommendations for improving had been at that time. and maintaining access to ocean beach. rec and park at the national park service are working to coordinate a path forward to address the dunes.

2020 than i instud stop signs. speed tables and more to address safety concerns with the upper great highway to vehicles. some were install instead coastal zone in the dashed your in red. per of the pilot. mta monitoring vehicle count and speeds of both along the upper great highway itself and within the outer sunset niching we have not heard concerns from agencies regarding the pilot. the gate design alines with the fire department needs.

received 280 e mails calling forup holding the appeal. and 990 calling for the dismissal of the appeal. thank you we have mta and rec and park staff to answer questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> could you go become to your first or second slide? i would like to equip not at this moment before public comment this there is clirification from the city attorney of when we are ruling on tonight.

i want to make sure that i upon it make sure that we are ruling on the of right thing the legal thing -- as opposed to the wham may be the will of the people. says we should have -- fun programs and all the things this supervisor engardio said. which are wonderful and marvelous but may not be legal. i don't know this to be trough. i really before we hear public comment tonight about. we like to i don't want to be mr. scrooge i grew up on that highway. i know ocean beach everything about the nature of that. i would like the city attorney before we have public comment to add sunrise the public and the

commissioners what we are ruling on tonight. that may be different from when the public intent is. which is access to all the really need and cool things that supervisor engardio laid out. you said park and -- mta has this, park and rec this then fed. 1, 2, 3. where does the coastal commission was left out of most of your presentation.

coastal commission in my life developing rescue rigzal fasill uts, motels lived in fear of the coastal commission they always said, no, no, no there was legal precedents that got in the way of what certain developermented to do or anybody. coastal commission has jurisdiction oast ocean beach segment you go to them for anything. ocean beach to the right of the green area. the road of the of great highway, that is in the coastal

zone. over here. is it coastal commission jurisdiction? >> i would leave this to the planning staff to answer. i thank you is the argument here. which is the required local coastal program. must be rapid and blessed by the coastal commission. so -- what i'm trying to figure out is -- if the park and rescue department is acting

ashlandtrary and out of all good things. out of in defiance of or breechave coastal commission jurisdiction? this is the question here. is the local coastal program being respected and will it get a stamp approval by the coastal commission? >> respectful low commissioner swig i'd like to defer to planning staff they are administers of the local coastal plan. can you address that in your testimony and if you run out of time would you call on me and i will ask you the same question, thanks that's it. >> no questions you can be seated. we will hear from planning.

>> to rec and p for the great highway pilot. or project i meant to say. and associated traffic calming you read and heard details about the project location and components i will not repeat those. i'm happy to answer questions it was heard by planning on november 9 of last year. there was public comment at this time. appellates here tonight provided written or oral comments to planning raising in or most same issue in their briefs the

planning voted unanimous low to approve the coastal permit without discussion. noted in my brief the requirement for the permit is a function of the california coastal act of 1976 and creation of the california coastal commission. luallows it to delegate the luto local jurisdictions upon adoption and certification. a program or lcp. consists of 2 the land use plant western shore line plan for san francisco and the impelement anticipation program. includes the planning code and zoning man continues. must be certified by the coastal commission. san francisco certified coastal commission in 86 and amended in 2018 amendmented made to the western shore lone planful section 330 establishes the rules by which the coastal zone

permit required. some permits are approved by the za, some go to planning. the coastal zone within san francisco is divideed 3 subzones. swon area where the coastal commission retains permitting area where san francisco retains full permitting authority and the coastal second zone where we have local authority the coastal zone permits appeal to the coastal commission and an area where san francisco retain full permitting third degree to the coastal commission unless an appeal is permitted under public resource code. the great highway project

falless in the second area. and the coastal zone permit is appealable to the board and the board determination appealable to the commission. position there are not any procedural issues. with this permit. so -- first the appellate state its is not consistent with the lpp it has not been certified

except for the 2018 certification area plan. the city is coordinating to update the lcp more. the updates are not nets to approve this permit. the project area is within public low owned property and the right of way. the same in 96 the controls other same the reference coastal zone for the beach was located in the public zoning district this was in the raised at that time nor a concern by the coastal commission. the public right-of-way where traffic calming measures in other districts that was amended since 1996 or not relevant to

the traffic calming measure in the street. 4 lane straight highway with rec tris for bicycle, pedestrian. left lane scape pregnant parking. and safe access to the beach. the planning commission's position the project is consistent with the plan and policy the permit maintain the highway as a 4 lane street each week. will end in less then and there 2 years and a continuation require a new permit.

am improve safearc sesz to the beach. section 6 of planning commission approval motion provides accounting how it is consistent with general plan goals and objectives. appellate state its snot upon consistent with various state laws and coastal access policies the law is delegated to and implemented through our lp the project is consistent with both the planning code and western

shore line including related to access. given the limited scope and time of the project. planning nielthmentes or variances. however clear any work or project started without approvals obtain them on

continue to the future. this actually is common in the city with projects receiving approvals after thes fact and often due it property owner or business unaware of need for approvals. there are many examples of the coastal commission. am requires after a project begun working with them through the permitting process. it is unfounded an early start to a coastal project without authorization prevent from obtaining the approvals. appellate state approval motion states it is only the western shore line plan and the findings fail to state it is also consistent with the planning code. this claim is fashl were partial low true but not material to the permit approval.

the language went -- 5 within the motion state that thes commission finds the project is consistent with the provisions of the planning code the implementation program of the lcp. failed to reference the planning code per of the lcp the findings were adequate. project does not meet environmental standards the temporary road closure is exempt from environmental review. and by state law. which was adopted by the state to exempt public projects implementing bicycle facilities. the pilot meets criteria for an

exemption traffic calming issued an exemption and no appeal of the determination filed in the time implementing procedures any future proposal to extend the partial road closure require a new permit at that time.

based on findings it was consistent does meet the requirements of plan and the great highway pilot traffic calming are consistent with the city's lcp. over all i want to emphasize this is a pilot intended inform the city. "boardum hold the approval of

the coastal zone permit. i'm available for questions you may have. i out lined the coastal zone and referenced that project in that second middle zone. coastal commission has jurisdiction. because as we experience and in housing stuff. of the state to come in and -- overrule your wisdom as is great always. mr. teague and they other state and did when they want that's my general freak out.

weer here because of a state law and a state agency to impept and receive this law and del giftd that authority to san francisco. they reserved full authority and we are in the talking about this part of the zone. in the other 2 parts of the zone they delegated the local authority based on our local program they certified. we have jurisdiction to dot work

we are doing the jurisdiction the commission has now is they are appeal body. after this hashing or the decision from the board if you were to deny the appeal an option to appeal to the coastal commission. our -- again i'm going ask the

city attorney to play her role before we get in public comment and what we are doing. which you already said. if we determine there is a local coastal program and everything done by park and rec and planning has been in the -- certifiable or under -- properly instituted under the umbrelast local programs then we should denight appeal and move forward. why correct. >> then deny and approve the

permit. the board finds the permit is consistent with the local coastal program they would make that finding and deny the appeal. and the considerations for us. and are the allegations that there is 2 many could be wishy wishy i think -- the comment was -- you are moving target.

considerations that have been put in to planning commission position this does not make it clear.

th is rigid and fundable and should be fleckable to conditions this evolve as life moves on? >> i'm saying that like any other part of the general plan the planning code provides hard and fast regulations. right. >> whether required setback or mack height. typically in general plan the elements or area plans they will provide principles found and strategies in goals other thanning policy and objectives that don't provide explicit,

hard edges and -- making and so the coastal zone permit is consistency determination. not a measurement issued no more than x feet or y square if he felt consistent with our program the planning code is framework did not provide thou shall not do maximum of this or that the framework is procedural. when the planning commission was asked to do and before the board is the consistency determination for the coastal program.

it corn formed >> yea the approved motion from planning calls out specific portions of not only the western area plan butt general plan that are applicable and finds and makes affirmative statement in the motion that the permit is both conforming to -- the western shore line and planning code and our local coastal perform >> before or after >> in the motion on.

november ninth. i mean not sure fiunderstand the question that -- the per mist was required be approved by planning. the permit before you here and able to aprove permit planning had to make finings which they did through this motion they adopted unanimously. >> and the activities of closing the great highway before or after that. >> those started before. the permit was required to be obtains that's the process and what happened on november 9 in planning.

talked about emergency vehicles having access. can they use that great highway to get to the va >> i don't believe that was intent of maintaining access and the board of supervisors ordinance references public vehicles.

talking about public health of ambulance. et cetera . and -- when you described great highway is a 4 lane highway access, et cetera . and you say it is that the city said that way most of the time is that a threshold that would not be true. joy think that is a determination up to the discretion of those required make that finding it is not explicit. the rest the objectives of the western shore line area plan that in keeping with -- the

policy. whoa's discretion of else was this. why planning decision. before we move on rebuttal at the direction of president lopez we'll take a 10 minute break. thank you for patience. >> the public comment. public comment after the parties present. >> after rebuttal. regroup at 7. . 52. clear clear welcome back to the san francisco board of appeals. and we are on items 5ab and c. and we are on the rebuttal portion.

we'll hear first from the appellates who represent speak. you have 3 minutes. >> well. engardio said common sense we can't pull back the new york times featured temperature appellates are not joyful people. this board standard of review consistency with the certified local coastal program. somewhere sprngs joy due to the permit and some are not. elder real and disabled driving on the coast the great highway or not experiencing joy.

it is unnecessary bureaucracy a lot believe ad a and other laws are bureaucratic and electric joy. you could argue any law lacks joy. um -- mr. -- said the coastal zone permits are not common they are common in san francisco. with policy 2.1 of the shore

line plan. partial low consistent is when mr. teague said it is consistent not consistent. 4 lane straight highway. partial low consistent with the constitution is not consistentful and may be standard in san francisco this is the locals coastal program.

that is regarding the concept of retroactivity. my question is before i get to the question there is a lot of potential sources that we draw from regarding the allowability of retroactivity in laws generally. i will not surprise anyone to know it is a source of debate and -- legal action and -- california more broodly. my question what benefit is there to speak or any member of the community from preventing retroactive plaintiff's exhibit of the lu.

we are talking about consistency with the local coastal program which is the law of governing this. there is nothing imployed in -- the local coastal program. that provides for retroactive permits and it is the coastal act make its clear if there is something this a city or county in the coastal zone wants to do not in the procedure engage in updating the local coastal program. . put legible about it and the

take holders to determine if this make sense. >> when benefit now from preventing it? other than it should have been dhn way. jot benefit returning to the status quo. the great highway is open to -- passenger traffic for the western shore line. we have a question. ask you about a term maximum public access. >> seems to me that -- there is

more public access now than before. i knowledge be wrong by the numbers. but would it be achieved if people are accessing the beach than not. not clear more are accessing the beach will i had a discussion with the superintendent. i guess of the -- of -- the golden gate national rec your. from the discussion. it did not appear sent data that we were evaluating and it appeared that there maybe might be people walking in the pictures that supervisor engardio provides on that path

way. this does not mean they are acseltszing the coast. and -- and the beach. and there are a lot of constate wensys that actually access the beach by driving on the upper great highway. some drive and park and walk. some unable to -- their form of access they drive the great highway and roll down window and enjoy view and get fresh air and minot be able to get down. >> the mack public access means that there are in the people depride it ever it who used to be able to have t. and do you

have commentsary on the issue of retroacttivity? >> well. yes , there is nothing and in our broefr as well. there is nothing in the certified coastal program that imploys that a retroactive permit is acceptable. and the local coastal program is the law of the land when it come to what happens from the coastal zone in san francisco and if the city realliments rec to issue

retroactive coastal zone permit this is should be per of the discussion in updating the local coastal program a public press with all stake holders involved. >> and relies on rateo activity and riskarctivity would be rejected in the normal process. >> it does not make sense to me. it is an if that's a discussion that the citiments to have part of the process of updating the local coastal program. mr. moore? you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. i'm happy to go to question and save time.

talk about what happening with the sewage product. how they will mitigate the

environmental affects. and i mean you sought pictures thousands now to a park opened with no budget. who opens a park with no budget or plan or review. by the way i want to ask the board to take notice of the pact. ceqa is different than the coastal act one of the things abenvironmental review exempted because of the ceqa. it works in addition to looking at access issues.

if theed city returned and had a discussion with the community ask applied for a permit and a compromised solution. i don't know what might be out there. i'd like to know as a member of public before the city decides how they want things to be in my community. rowelling on the law and alloying retroacttive problem under the lcp not del gifted by the ccc if not it is not there. so when the city claim its is okay if it is silent and okay they were un, wear, the city

needs expert ease how to give that program. to the point, if the finds i problem and denies the permit the city is welcomes to.

snot like sf this is closed the children will not have anywhere to go and smile you got the greatest urban park in the country immediately adjacent to the great highway just shut down all sorts of roads to traffic. and jfk is i play land. it is not like if this is not open, the children of san francisco are going to just you know fall apart and have no place to play.

travenlg calming measures the fact they are needed. >> this -- when this highway is closed public safety is under mined if not true traffic calming measure would not be needed. when the highway is closed the streets are dangerous we have to mitigate the harms. and former supervisor mar he went the record at a board hearing i can point it if you want it and said traffic calming measures have in the worked. >> thank you. time. >> i don't see questions you can be seat the. >> hook. we will hear from rec and park. have 9 minutes.

why hi. i want to emphasize this is a pilot until 2025 and we will be having a public engagement process. will discuss when we find in the pilot. and when it is used an a roadway that is when we the solicit public for their feedback what they feel about the space we can go to the board of supervisors and they can decide the future of the great highway. i yoeld my time. where we have questions? and vice president. you know what you said. park and rec is acting to do this. it thing its is the right thing capriciously and because it

wants to. that offenders me. and i have to say this. who is i like him very much and respect him. you know you don't do it buzz you want to. you do it because there is research and you don't advise the public later, do you. when you are going to make a change in this city. where is the do you rememberation from park and rec instead of acting capriciously. where is the data that say this is is in the going to destroy do you understand. it not infringe on public safety and it is not block the exit

pregnant during a quake or other emergency. and when golden gate park the greatest in the world i will go with you. is right there. why is this necessary? is there does there happening on over flow. the outside lands's festival another capricious event. by the way in my view i about live nation. and so -- where -- i -- am reacting way your testimony was a sales pitch. and you go back and look at your slides the last 3 a sales pitch. and it put forth asertions that were unwithout fundamential

research data and compliance any relationship compliance of other than you withina do this. i have to react this way i'm tired why does park and rescue get to move forward buzz it wants to oshg poseed real research, action and consideration this is i question i said, why. why does park and rec do this buzz it s to. why does park and rec do this in flit in the faces of safety and security issues why does bark and rec do this because without considering environmental issues why does park and reshg do this. can you explain that and don't give me a sales pitch will with

respect the future of the great highway has been a topic for a long time. we were active payments in the great highway concept etch evaluation report property to the board stating in the capacity transportation authority in 2021. this project did go through environmental review. received a [inaudible]. from the planning department. who is the department tasked with evaluating those under ceqa. i'm -- having a hard time understanding your asertion this this is capricious and done buzz we wanted. it is long a topic of discussion. involved a lot of public out reach authorized by the board of supervisors and supported by

voters was a pilot to further evaluate options for the great highway. that enables us to look at real time information not traffic modelings. not projections real time information on impactless. so we believe this is good public policy. making we have an opportunity to pilot something understands impacts and make recommendations based on real facts. from that i think it it is a common practice. when it is possible to pilot that idea >> shoot first and aim later. >> we will shoot first and aim later >> no, sir. >> we will open a park without a budget and where is the budget for cleaning. >> that's an unsubstantiated claim if you would like toned our starching i'm happy to share with you. sure.

>> go for it how our budget works >> go for it. >> please i'm inviting you this is how we make decisions. i don't understand jermaine to the question a local coastal permit was appropriate low awarded but the rec and park department manages 220 million dollars budget composed of 3 main source property tax, revenue from the open space fund. general fund set aside and revenue we earn. majority. our staff 97% of them are in the fields guard ins and staff is divided in -- property 4,000 acres over 230 parks.

in the area on weekends there needs to be more are infrastructure to support the increase in visitors we have seen and the type of visitors we have seen >> upon that is directly thank you for directing my question. how many people are going to visit the great highway on weekends now. what is the plan? how many? how many will come if this plan moves forward on an average weekend. greatest determining visitors we seen since studying the visitor is winds.

your question how much people will visit this weekends? or any weekend what is the plan do you have research. this is the difference with capricious and fact fact when you say we did 365 days a year and 52 weeks and. and on winter we anticipate this. >> we have -- as a result there will be this many people and where is the budget? we have studied the upon suddenly and weather variations brian can take you through when we see speak visits. appear looks like 4-10,000 a week and i will let brian on a

weekend and i will let brian speak to peek periods. in terms of your question about flexingum and dun to respond to and budgeting. >> we see this throughout our parks system. anyone been to delores park the infrastructure and staffing necessary to support thenned in a park is different than the average tuesday. our maintenance staff is comprised of the staff set to be in that area and are custodial and gardener have a pool of flex staffing. that is set up for instances like this we see this throughout the park system usage on a being weekend and holiday.

brian will stands there if i was you i would. with regard to public policy and safety. you have a key are exit path. from the city of san francisco. i have been through the 56 quake. 57 quake. 89 quake the bigys and fun ones

and there will be another one. great highway closure exit what happened upon and the exits emergency path is blocked. what is the plan, is there i man. to have park and rec locked at the safety, traffic and about what happens at the gates are closed. >> yes. there are swing gates that are at the entrances and exits of the road we have worked with the firefighter and d. emergency management to get signed off and understand their prosecute colthalsd be their call if there were an emergency situation that required them to be open that is manage they are authorized to do. >> how did this incorporateed the coastal program? >> i'm sorry.

i dover mr. teeping. would you like bribe to speak. how many visit and to sarah a comment. most parks we experience more usage during the summer when people are out of school and the weather is better in san francisco. great highway and the coast you lives in that area. the win pick up in the prisoning we seat least visits. we see moderate increase in the

summer. it is during winter we see the most visits. and any weekend averages between 2-4,000 per day. >> can go up up to events over 10,000. but a rainy day like the other day. my concern i did not like the sales pitch. that's when i'm reacting to you gave us a sales pitch instead of a business plan. that related to legal precedent that's why i'm reacting in the way i'm doing and resupervisor engardio's dogs kid, ponent excess families routine where how can you deny what he said you can. if you look behind the facade of

where is the plan and has it complied. kwhol impact bithis pilot program done and your associate said it. we will learn as we go. when i intercepted. you know we will learn as we go and in a year we will see if we screwed up or not.

i'm uncomfortable with that. you know. and that's why i'm reacting. give me facts. we are monitoring the data in real time now. so we inform the public how the space is used people recreating, drive and youing mentioned to the dunes. are you married look at san francisco institute report on the dunes. we are working with our park service colleagues to look for funds to -- work on some of the recommendations of that report. to address many of the environmental concerns. >> what you say is yes we are and we will learn and.

and the end of the december 2025 and the pilot program. we'll get results of winging it and have did thea to see if based on the data whether we move forward. i don't think a joint hearing of mta and rec and park and board and 20 hours of public comment, study and but we can agree to disagree on that. >> okay. why thanks i will pass on to commissioner lemberg. >> president lemberg has a question. why i have a few more questions i wanted hear from who can answer about the institute i'm not familiar with. and -- as far as the qualifications what they do and who they and are their role is here >> they are sprit but it is

relevant to the discussion on the great highway it is about the do you understand next to the great highway. they are a body that performances scientific research and the study was funded by california coastal conservancy. or the funding arm of the coastal commission to look at the dunes among other things throughout the sunset district. >> when are operative reports that rec and p and others use to -- make these determinations on the environmental -- impacts and sustain ability of this project. of the closure of the upper great highway. on the dunes and the beach and

the physical next is i do know and understand this this project was start in the professional 2020. early pan dem exhibiting subject to the emergency rowel in place at this time of as were many other changes to the city that started in the march, april of 2020 when the world changed. and you know emergency powerhouse are there for a reason. a lot of thing this is come out of that. . but -- with the beginning of a project like this. am there had not been closure of

the upper great highway to vehicle traffic before april 2020. the first thing i would think of is okay this is done under we started the program under emergency rules if we want to continue had long-term and may be that was not the statements at that time. i saw is the emergency rules end in the august of 21. and this the very first things in the project did not start until 2022.

yet work on this did not permanent of -- the become permanent of this project. i then and there is a pilot and slated to end in december of 25. it is 5 and a half years of existence and the long are something exist in pilot the harder to gift red of. in 2020 and when the

formalization process began. by my review of that. we may have to tag team this i will do context setting a part of the emergency. the rec and p department closed 3 roads and parks. jfk, great highway and mc clirin they were all durnd the brood emergency orders i believe expired in 20 upon 22. there was a wind down period with the orders i am now forgotten how many days it was.

we snouted these 3 closures in response to public feed of back. we were also revamping all of our service deliver tow provide distance learning.

june 2021 we got direction from rec and park and the transportation authority board to go and pursue a pilot. we worked develop that legislation. buzz of a quirk of the california vehicle code this road is under rec and park not mta the majorities of roads don'ts go to the board they are handled by [inaudible] this . is rec and park road and that quirk in the vehicle code president charter amendment that to being that away and gave it to them the roads had to go to of the board. we have -- now closed jfk of the first piece of legislation. pilot was authorized for great highway. a few months ago.

our resource were dispose the the conversation began at the board level. >> so if the pilot was locked at by rec and park smugz in john of 21 it was under emergency rules. >> correct. why are reef here 2-1/2 years later hearing about the permit process. we applied for the permit for

the local coastal development permit theidate legislation is passed. you stated the entire great highway and the access points across the great highway which are to the best of my knowing the only access pinlts to ocean beach from everything east of the great highway. there is crosswalks every other block. from lincoln. and -- how has the permitting

process and planning process taken the over all use are access to ocean beach in my experience i lived here my life. there snot a clear crosswalk from the beach fast across the road a high speed road. what i'm looking at this through is the holistic vice president.

but um -- those 3 agencies other 3 most important in my viewpoint at least and so what i will ask you is the part in your jurisdiction, which is how the closure of the great highway to vehicle traffic on weekends improved actualarc sesz to ocean beach the primary recreational facility the great highway is giving access to. and what the relationship is between the closure and the sand do you understand which are great source of environmental concern by not only the appellates and a thousand page of public comment i read in preparation for this hearing. i want to get your viewpoint.

you are correct you cannot access the great highway with the vehicle except for lincoln or sloat. there is none newscast cross streets enter the great highway. primary role thwack reshg and p plays in beach access and access to the great highway, i would note is not we see a lot of users using the promenade it is not necessary low a connection to the beach we will maintain a multiuse path way there people use for wiek biking and walking. i would say the access to the coast. you can be a use and not on the beach. the rec and park department manages the ocean beach parking lots.

which are not in this area. they are between jfk and lincoln. you are familiar with those. we are also in the midst of a project not to confuse everyone. with the puc commission that prosecute poses to close the highway extension. and upon what the puc improve infrastructure there and we would we are building a park on top of that land what is now the great highway extension includes a ping let a future project the environmental impact report approved by the planning commission and the legislation to close the great highway has been introduced. in terms of that access those are the your rec and park controls. the mta can speak about the

public transportation improvements made. i did not know about the park and p lot on the great highway extension had is useful knowledge. for the entire part of ocean beach there is 8 parking spots the end of the beach which is not to really >> most have eroded away. >> frankly. . we're adding a 50 car parking lot on skyline and great highway part of that southern project. why that's south of the fort >> north of fortfunston. you said in rec and park

jurisdiction. i -- kind of building off behalf you were saying well is the beach access and now the promenade access issue. i know some is mta territory. but what you know i what efforts have rec and mark make to ensure people can access the beach and the promenade the new pace that did not exist before am i seen taraval e eliminated and replaced with a bumps vehicle

lawyer access. and i know the public transportation per is in the your purview. there are different ways member may access it a lot do drive to the beach it is for and not great public transit options. i will ask the mta our per in to independent to this. . can you just speak as to the parking aspect. under your jurisdiction and in the mta. our parking lot. >> sure. preliminary in the on the

weekends only. the same number of parking spots before it existed at all. >> correct. i can -- now we don't have a monitor of how many cars are occupied any moment. but many times it is not full. a very large park lot. i do appreciate your participation. >> yea. >> thank you. i'm from the mta the project manager the question about access and peoplearc sesz the great highway through all sorts of ways. if you are driving will come and park and walk over or take your skates off or whatever you doll and so we are watch 311 complaints to make sure that we hear whether we need to tow and

illegal parking we have not received those complaints but have an active machine tor. in terms of if you are biking created a new car free connection allowing people who start at the lodge and bike for 3 miles without encountering vehicle behavior. and they come in this way and we see weekends huge bike use and those people manifest on to the great highway promenade for people walking. many will walk in from the neighborhood ownership took that drive tripper public transport inform terms of public transport we have the engine the used lines west of the mississippi and we did legislate a change to our turn around to make it safer for everybody out there. it is running a bus bridge when

this is complete will have transaction service and running safer and more effectively than ever. a really cost effective and safe way it get across town and mta does run muni. we are providing the ways and effective ways for people to enjoy this place during the weekend. it does j. brian knows all. brian knows better. the 48 runs across the entire city j. is the 23 back up and running throughout bayview? it was in the for awhile. why thank you. upon brian for that. [laughter]. >> um -- that's all helpful.

any bike paths to the south.

>> there is one dispout that i'd like to have addressd and that is -- i heard in the department's brief this evening that environmental review was conducted. the appellates spoke i heard there was in environmental review and we need to start over. in order to conduct an environmental review. of coursed you clarify from the departments upon. which, what environmental review

took place and when was involved in this review. >> absolutely issue commissioner. >> the planning department details what the project contains n. this case, the pilot closure was submitted to the planning department who then review today and i dent want to speak for them they are here. [inaudible]. so we what we do is put in the application. . and they conduct the environmental review. i will let who want this is question explain this press they are our regulator in that press. for the benefit of everyone. the planingly department will address that. >> yes.

>> that's it from me >> commissioner trasvina. >> similar question the voermental arsspects and obviously well is -- a sense of greater tension now on the issue it is important to a lot of people. this commission has been down this road before. in the sunset agencies tell us thing rely on fellow departments and i can say the eaches in the past i was one i know how dedicated you are. no question about that. the processes established are of concernful you call this a pilot project. environmental aspect for snowy clovers may be trampled, damaged it is not a pilot it is over.

one thing we are asked to do is provide leeway. and studies the question now was we other project experience. the question i have. a you spoke i got more correspond. . i of the the first kearnses sounded good. this experts stenographed the environmental impact.

i will say rec and park manages

4,000 acres of land. a thousand are natural areas. many with endangers species. federal, state regulators from fish and game. recovery actions on the twin peeks the mission blue butterfly and working with the epa and fish and wildlife the california red legging from and san francisco guarder snake we have a division when are -- trains to work. in the park that they manage and

we work with them on the area. we have staff who -- can work with us to address issues that come up the main issue with the dunes is they blow in the road and close the road a total of -- upon then times. majority of the issue on the part of do you understand had are under the jurisdiction. rec and park's department is the wind blows them away and need to be repleasanted. i lost joyful pictures those joyful pictures involve neap have an impact on the environment and whether you say they are going to the program nad not beyond.

>>. s understood and this is the job of the rec and parks department. the lands are open for we want them to be open for people it use and dogs which have i significant impact in parks. we are always working to preserve the land and the had been at that time and allow public access this is a balance we are familiar with. >> thank you. commissioner swig. sorry. i got more questions i know it

is late. when i'm asking. anyone can respond to this question. what i'm asking not to bust your chops or take a position it it is to fully flush out the appellate's points of view. and if you were on the other side i will do the same thing in your support. understand this i don't mean to be combative that said, there was a point made with regard. engardio showed pretty pictures of dog and children and you will that stuff and pointed out we have this event. we have that event would feel very well this event. the only thing not was senior yoga i was participate in.

events are great your testimony was yea. in the winter time we have les people when windy no people of why is this not grad waited the park with this part of the great highway can be available to the public. on an ad hoc basis. based on an event. not and not just be wilnilly because again i -- you know i will use the worst capriciously. why is not a comp niezed position the intention of park and rec to continue the research

to open the great highway. in the meantime. encourage that the -- trial use through an event by event which is available to the public. and -- at this time? you are ask why not periodically closed to events. >> why are you going from zero to 60 that means we'll open up on every weekend for the public. and why not is the asked of usage and impact baseod what is going on now. issuance. i live across the marina green.

upon >> there were -- there were a variety of configurations and schedule before the legislation that was put before the board was developed including seasonal

closures. value proand const. of prescriptions and making surety public understands when a resource is available whether for the program nad or driving. so, the answer is this -- the -- a variety of things were evaluated this through our press involved commission hearings. comment. conversation with our fellow city agencies. the pilot tht board approved was the weekend piwell we'll hear

prosecute planning you have 9 minutes. okay. thank you. president lopez. planning department. try to cover a few things. one, think about this. from i higher level in terms of

fact we have been harpoth fact it is pilot. that's what it is. and terms of how we got here i will not speak for my colleagues you know we talked about the process was the -- and then response by city many levels the department level and board tloefl figure out how do we decide what we want to do. raised the question the long-term use. firefighter that tha question generated process and time of

the step we should take is the pilot program that would give us information through this pilot program. to more data and make decisions down the road on the question of how should the great highway be used long-term that's why we are here. seems like it takes a language time. getting on the calendar of the different board and it is staff work it take its is reality of the situation had take a language time to get the duck miss a row and dot out roach and -- check off the necessary boxes. on the retroactive issue the position if you started a project you did in the get it first you can never get it?

for this project? what if the project is a beneficial project will benefit environment? the point is than i have to get the permit and the appropriate process that is not uncommon with case we see all the time of i may make an exception for compared to our lovely expresident and the way i men repeated mistruths. i think i don't have credit say i don't purposefully state things that are in the true i'm not aware of make statement that

were claimed i said verbally or in my brief i just locked. on the environmental review. issue, in this same, i understand it is confusing like yes it went through environmental review admit sense it had to be filtered through ceqa and both of these the traffic calming measures it is exempt. it is an exemption and for the street closure the same thing. the types of projects don't require environmental review. piunderstand in may not love this. but that is the state law and the press that was followed. also the appellates in raising the environmental concerns. which knownments to harm the environment. but i don't think i referenced a

policy went western shore line plan that are specific low referencing environmental reviews or protections in any way irrelevant haven't to the project. the only policies in this plan that were focused on sensitive environmental issues are south of the area, shore line, lake merced and ocean beach itself. so the the pilot has not gone through an eir but it is true that there is lets of efforts learninger than the pilot going of that are looking at the larger environment and impacts to ocean beach. that the city is partners with and wing on and it is something the city is concerned about and the same thing that would help inform future environmental review in terms of collecting

the real data from the pilot program this is really the purpose of a pilot it is this step. not going zero to 60 it is going zero to 25 to get the speed limit right. ? extent you don't know, that's why you do a pilot to figure that out. so -- with all of that again. it is important it ground become to when we are hear for. was this permit issued consistent with the local posted program.

i don't see questions at this time. you can be seated. before we move to public comment. president lopez asks city attorney hoover to provide or -- i'm sorry commissioner swig when asked to provide the board with the willing state your name are standards. we coverd that ad nauseam. to make it clear this board's role is to review the permit for consistency with the requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program. there are 2 components the western shore line your plan and includes the implementation

program the applicable planning and zoning prosecute visions. it is a narrow question you in are looking atkins with the requirements of that program. budget and funding don't come to play in the local coastal program. that is what the board needs to consider. the objectives part of the local coastal program in ways include a policy. right. references period of time use and parking and the highway and so it is a determination that the planning commission had to make based on policy objectives not always in harmony with each other.

mr. teague mentioned the environmental piece. if you look at the board of supervisor record it did go to plan for example ceqa exemption. the reference there is one in the local coastal plan with respect to the great highway and ecosystem. design p to afford protection to the dub ecosystem. it is not have broad environmental object itch its is a specific plan about this land that is in the coastal zone. >> last i want to claire fight time line there has been discussion about what is retroactive. i think this was a bit of a chick sxen egg problem from legal. rec and park started with this meeting in the summer of 21.

in the midst of the pandemic. recommendification made for the pilot program. approximately i year later the legislation was introduced an ma'am at this time rec and p code to allow this closure. and that legislation took sick months before it passed. after the legislation passed. the permit had to describe what it is project was the legislation defined that. it is a unique circumstance i want to make sure that -- there are some clirification around the being unique and the code had to be amended and that the

ordinance references necessity of seeking a coastal zone permit. how many want to prosecute void ment with you raise your hand and keep it up we will do a quick count. about 20 xoem we are 63 in zoom. president lopez it is 9. . 15. >> we will in the interest of time the fact that we have another agenda item after this. that we have to close out the evening. in order to move forward with our budget.

we will reduce the speaker times to a minute. i will say and i feel compelled to say this in the left couple of years i have been on the board. this is probably the most are case file. with ample public comment, which we welcome and i want to echo the words of commissioner tras vin at beginning of the meeting that -- we are that he want everybody is here. and the folks at home are participating as well. but i would suggest you heard from our deputy city attorney the narrow question before us. which is compliance with the local coastal plan. with respect the to permit.

i would suggest this -- anything outside of this may or may not one money perspective up here. one of 4 may or may not be helpful for us to reach the decision that we need to reach this evening based on those program terse out lined by the city attorney's office.

the way dweel at this time first come up and wroit your name so we can keep accurate minutes write your name society yes, ma'am with the navy 20er. and speak for a minute and -- ma'am. you can of come up and dweel it in this manner. >> thank you. i'm jeff danielle in the out are sin set upon a daily surfer and going to ocean beach for 25 year i urge you uphold the unanimous decision to issue the permit for the pilot program and reject the appeals. a south americaning success with 3 million visits it is about coastal access we need a dub

plan. i live in the sunset district. this is really about upholding the law and upholding the coastal commission authority. unfortunately plan and parks and rec don't is an understanding of the coastal decision or they are igwe need at this time coastal

commission. they allows us to have one of the most beautiful coast line in the world. and they need to the parks department and planning need to understands it was partial low consistent. this man from planning said it was within huh human % consistent. than i have to learn when the luis and the coastal commission. i ask to you uphold the perimism talks about maximizing public access in the same as public recreational opportunity in the coastal zone.

thousands walking, rolling, beaks and enjoying the ocean when the legislator meant when they wrote public access. this was a hard brokered compromise with the mayor and the board and the pilot is the compromise. >> thank you. the speaker if you can sign in.

i want to highlight a couple things. one it is about access it more types of people and activities. if you want it enjoy the coast before the pilot and in i wheel chair have you a stroller with a kid you outer of luck we are organizing up the coast. of the space that rec p maintains i want to add this that is where my free time goes. i'm john eliot the great highway when chezed car is my favorite

place, i learn you don't care this is irrelevant mineute details. low coastal program. improve access to the coast. two, redesign the great highway to enhance recreational use. that's objectives the 3 objectives that's it. thank you. good evening i'm carroll i lived in san francisco 35 years. you see i'm disabled. but i get around well i'm enabled by the scooter i have to

be careful about cars. now i can get out without cars, san francisco is on the pacific ocean. i did not realize that before. >> and did you -- sign in and put your name. i live at 2436 great highway. i am in support appellate. the pilot continues there needs to be changed. i is show everybody blowing throughout stop signs.

and a calendar finishing. i'm you have to ask for's translator in advanced. sure. >> you have someone to translate. i can translate for them >> why don't they come up now. i can speak [inaudible]. your neighbor needs a translator. >> no problem. hello i'm here to people can hear our voice to reopen the

great highway. from 2020 to 21. we stay home. at that time we don't know what is going on. we are staying home and enjoy our home you in we need to work. it is against the lawsuit administration and most of our immigrants don't have the to against it. the proposal to close. now drive every day and really for our life. that's my point. >> thank you.

please open the great highway. bouz now >> in traffic or 19 street. reopen the great highway. thank you. sinceure translating she can

have 2 minutes. great. you have 2 minutes may be she should speak one and you one. we live together for generation. we need to driveway to pick update kids and pick up the grand ma the old peopleful we use the highway every day.

so -- it is inconvenience for us. thank you >> thank you very much. >> du sign in? good evening. i urge to you reject appeal. i speak from self interest. of access. i taken transits from the north to the south. to the ocean beach and it works. stlchl no obstruction of access it is better not driving i don't

struggle with ping or wait in traffic. the pilot is essential. i'm a chemist and w in the semi conductor industry. that is what that pilot is intended do. >> it is important. thank you. i live next to the upper great highway. i want to say that this pilot does maximize public access to the coastal zone. there is a group of blind runners. i like to point out that ceqa does not apply planning department said that.

the adacht bicycle and men when were riding bikes for the first time in their life. people with spinal cord

injuries. people with head trauma and developmental disabilities. young adults. i'd like to continue being i per of this program and supporting it and hopeful low they the make it larger. this is >> thank you. i'm alex from haight/ashbury neighborhood. commissioner swig out lined when would happen if you accept the appeal. tell be replaced with tire tracks. set out boot coastal commission. llow discussion.

thank you. we can hear you >> good evening. after pandemic we go become to work. [inaudible] family and we are busy for the drive and busy for the family. now the great highway is chezed in the voenlt. waste our time and gasoline and money. i sought happy face during halloween.

people flew the to cycling and -- most of the time i ride along the great highway.

many of the are hesitant it roadway in the city because of fear of cars. when great highway is closed give people the opportunity to build strength in using alternative forms of transportation. keep great highway car free. thank you. >> thank you. good eviling i'm rachel collide west side organizer from the bicycle coalition here representing thousands of members when lost pilot. we ask you uphold the determination to issue the coastal zone permit per pilot and reject appeals. this permit in, line approved by the board and the mayor in december of 22 and the permit is in linement with the local coastal plan out lined. we need to take steps to meet

our goals. transportation is a major part of that. i live in san francisco reject this appeal attempt and uphold the permit. compromise strikes the right balance on weekday and people strolling on the weekends. gwen. i ask you reject the appeal as it has no merits andup hold the permit to min taint pilot compromise.

if an earthquake strikes 10,000 people outside. not burr ed in their homes and emergency vehicles need to get by a 20 foot walk across the street. beyond that. everybody on the appellates is -- with the coastal commission. great. if not hear from them? than i can help us surmise weather what has been done crosses i's and crosses t's >> thank you to everyone who prorided comment in the room. you did a great job. jot room down stair, too. i don't know if anyone is down

there in the over flow room i gave direction to come up. we will turn to zoom the first is samsung sm. >> go ahead. i will say a lot it is clear if we are highway is consistent with the agenda the destruction of the sand dub system not i seen rebel manldzed pirnts allowing children to slide down the dunes and throw sand on the highway and yelled out. i don't trust the park's department.

anthony. go ahead. you need to unmute yourself >> anthony's i pad >> one thing. there is no problem in accessing the beach. has in the been for 100 year 4 listen great highway in. the pregnant ways at this time beach the problem is that all the people say they want access to the beach but not going to the beach if you go to the beach don't you go to the beach where the sand is and everything? why would you want to be on

asphalt? i like and supervisor engardio nice pictures you do this in golden gate park. woman at the park martin luther king drive also close. >> thank you. eon heart attack. go ahead. >> hello. i'm eon a residents of the outer sunset district for you. calling to ask this you uphold the unanimous decision to -- keep the pilot program and reject the appellate's appeal.

them be appealed to the next level. up hold this decision. we apply for a permit suggested by commissioner swig this would create chaos and motors never know when it is open. patrish why. i got it. yea. i lived here for 39 years laws

pertaining to the beaches in california state that than i should preserved and maintain in the natural condition this . pilot i want the board ton they am said this pilot is a full closure of the upper great highway. ask park and rec about the plans than i are making for the redesign of the highway. when they close it. per minute innocent low. it is a done deal. ask them about this. i have no problem with open on the weekend tell be a disaster.

steven, go ahead. >> okay. thank you. i like to look at complete agreement with the appellate. as a lawyer i'm touched by the retroactivity it is i rare use. i believe we should follow his instructions and we should make sure that the highway remains xoep get an environmental impact report of the

>> i'm nick. native born in the sunset i want to say some talked about tht traffic mitigation is a joke. i see more near accidents in period of timeings getting hit. it is treacherous example this being i pilot i year and a half more of this, let of people getting hurt. and i agree with the last caller belonging permanent. this is hoisted upon us and you know the people are not from san francisco the planners come from michigan and north carolina.

and they decide. the native voices are silent. >> thank you. hoimd the permit and reject the appeals. and more then and there 2.8 million made use was space. a lot of argument it is made i need to address. the project fails on the environmental front is i joke.

the notion allow cars to drive through will not have. emergency access you know what is more obstructive car traffic. reject the appeals and allow this experience to continue. thank you. why thank you. stacy. >> i'm stacy live on the other side of the city in d10. i go it great highway i ride a bike. where is the plan? where was it for cars this crash and occupy the fire department 3,000 times a year.

the next call are 4127. go ahead. pleas star 6. can you hear me? yes. i listen to everybody talk the prosecute and conof this. a long time resident in d4. this is absurd i'm out door i never found a problem with finding ride, walk and run without great highway. not a park for over 90 years, i

beg you to support the appeal and not listen to the other side for whatever the agenda is. >> hi. good evening i'm a residents. [inaudible] working mom and 20 level i was on my way to ocean beach and a car and were not aware. traffic [inaudible].

instructive aspect and excessive designs and constructs, hufor cars to have. you electric at the level -- it different about when a car can do and -- phone member in 4127. go ahead. you know tucked about the use on great highway. sunday is the highest visitors

you can't trust park and rec than i play with the numbers it begin with. how many does p and rec have. learning of the p west of the mississippi. everything than i have done med it -- failed that's all i have to say. up hold the appeal. thank you. we did litigate had men times. the board and mta and the ballot backs with 2 prospect positions one of which was sponsored by the sxaelt failed.

and the green belts alliance. mothers out front. and the nature conservancy. san francisco dem crediteck party. its about protecting the coast. thank you. >> thank you. p are day? go ahead. i'm park were day a resident. i'm calling to ask to you uphold the plany unanimous decision to issue the great highway weekend pilot project perimism i'm one of a third of san francisco that lives without access to a car. i lived here for 11 years without a car the roadway functions as a wall cutting you have my access to the coast.

i like to point out. park is 2 miles from the southern end. it is in the there for everyone. this has been the least access believe piece of park land in san francisco. derrick. go ahead. i live on lincoln way. there is a trail on the great highway. people complay about no space or not able to do this. there will is a path you can use that is never used. traffic calming is a joke.

try to avoid cars and go fast ams highway should be for cars there is a park next door. there is a park go well and doior activities you want to dochlt hello. i live off the great highway and i love this about the weekends. allows access to so many people. bike path of next to cars speeding feels dangerous i feel

like families don't want to do this . there is a road this takes 2 minutes and tons of ping on this road. snk. obybethives 1-4, 6-12 exercise

better connecting residents of the western shore. opening the highway to noncar users embrace access and making good on objectives. improved public transis crediting i safe space. someone needs to figure out how to bring the core of the commission commissioners behavior is unbecome. i live on low are great highway i could talk about the joy this the grit highway brings on the weekendless. i than you don't care about that what you care about is the press exit think what you have heard from city staff is this they

gone through great lengths to upheld the will of the people and done it in i way and a time that is palpable for them. dover city staff they other experts. thifrpgs. >> thank you. i'm alice. and i live in the outer sunset. i'm calling to ask you to uphold the decision to issue the coastal zone permit for the pilot and reject the appeals i will have tear with the [inaudible].

place to bieshg walk and roll. i ask to you uphold this -- pilot project to collect the data necessary to answer the questions asked. >> thank you. >> i'm lauren and this is a personal comment not on behalf of i groupful thank you to the appeal for listen to the public comment. listen to the city staff reject the appeal. the great highway the best things to happen in san francisco. i look the 23 muni and the great

highway. a giant quick taur that was me. reject the appeal. thank you. i'm excited talk i'm snow clover. >> public opinion and professional opinionful police uphold the permit. our staff have done a greation and see you out there. thank you. genetics number in 3004 go ahead.

the -- traffic calming has not worked. i witnessed fireworks set off over the dubs and unrestrict today traffic destroying the pleasants and snowy clover during special events i sent you fetos of written comments on january 30.

protect our beach community. and deny granting the coastal zone permit. thank you. >> jen d. go ahead. jen d? >> hi. i'm jen i live out on the 1200 block at lincoln. and i lived here since 1997. my parents are natives and enjoyed the beach and great highway for many years. we need open it back up for occurs i witnessed times firemen getting out of trucks to open the gates, unlook the look and get become and go.

it is expands public access i'm a regular user what has been the most glorious public spaces when i make the trip and enjoy the park and open -- great highway i join the walk, jogging and rolling on grit highway and the friend low speck tax lawyer coast am reject theinally pilot

expands public access to the coast. >> thank you. >> rebecca, go ahead. i'm a native i live in the outer richmond export to say a lot of slippery language and imagery and in order to bends the luto the will. y find it troubling the supervisors using images of children to distract from the issue at hand revolves profit cal ignored for the safety and benefit of all. i don't have i car. i take public transit and i walk.

>> mike, go ahead. >> mike. you need to unmute yourself. >> can you hear me now. >> yes. >> great. >> i live on the gratify highway for 20 years a lot of people are negative old people. they are mad. angry. and the reality is the great highway is awe some. the cars was bad in the beginning and then than i put the speed bumps that fix today. it is one mile. if the cops or the firefighter or whensoever need to open a gate they can open a gate. the real issue is that the homelessness this are going in the do you understand or the rb people out here they are creating a lot of environmental hazards. but in general, the people are staying on the street. having a great time. so there is a lot of negative people and need to lighten up.

reality is the people that drive in front of my house i look out every day i don't see more than 6 cars the a time in a stop light this . is not vaness or geary or another street this is horrible. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. micheal howly. go ahead. >> hi. i'm michael howly a resident of district 8 in cole valley. i actual how much i love the space and how much people i met the ways volunteered president people i see temperature is about the strict legal process. this coastal zone permit reflects follows the procedures of the coastal act. compliant with the coastal plan. the rare slam dunk that gives access without taking any away. >> drive past the coast without able to legally stop is not access. there are no parking spots or

loading zones or ramps. nothing has been taken away instead people robbery granted access the first time to the beautiful stretch of xoeft in our city. i have been there more times in the last 2 years than the previous 10 years i lived here. it is an amazing opportunity and you have 39 our hard working city staff who followed the law. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. >> jerry rayvaughn, go ahead. >> yes, thank you. will i'm jaery i live in the outer sunset. my part in grew up here. the garden native plant and here to tell you there are not natives on the dunes temperature is all european beach grass and invasive pleasant by the us. many years ago temperature is all fake outrage. there was period of time tunnels

under the great highway. but i'm here to tell you about my partner hansel learned ride out here. he we volunteered at great haunt way. had a memorial ride for him that ended on the great walk way and it was beautiful. a place for mow to grieve and heel and experience nature the do you understand could look amazing if we let it. we just follow through with this. please, reject the appeal. and thank you. >> >> thank you. is there further public ment on zoom? raise your hands. i see one more person. one moment. john. go ahead. you need to unmute yourself >> hello >> go ahead.

>> i'm john i was born and raised in san francisco a residents. spent the first 23 years in like shore neighborhood close to the great highway. there every weekend from the other side of town i urge the board to uphold the planning commission's decision to issue the coastal zone permit for the weekend pilot and reject the appeal of the coastal zone permit. compromise follows prefers and fir with 2 thirds of time a lotted for. >> i reject the climbs of the closure is damaging to the environment. the high speed roadway is not damage. people notice an up tick in unsafe driving realize this is happening across the city. reject the appeals. thank you. >> thank you. brian reyes? >> i'm brian reyes. d4 and vice chair of the sierra

club. on behalf of 6,000 members on march 18, 23 the club sent a letter to the mayor, board. supervisors. rec and park and planning commission in support of a 24/7 great highway park. we want to condition to drive that in the space [inaudible] rejecting the appeal. and compromise will undo the environmental and community we have express in the my family as well. put us on track to the city's commitment to our emergency and reduce congestion and improve traffic and habitat for wildlife and increase access to out door educational experiences for our youth and allow exploration, protection of wild spaces. >> thank you. >> okay. kim, howly you have spoken i see

you keep raising your hand. is somebody different? i have not spoken yet i'm a residents of d8 and requesting to uphold the permit and denight appeal i know we want to comment on process i say the dozens i textd and call body this hearing who experienced joy in guard guard and others talked about, [speak too fast]. the it is the experts proposed a permit that people love. up hold and denight appeal. thank you very much. >> okay. >> thank you. any further comment. raise your hand. i see one hand. >> mary, go ahead. >> yes. thank you. getting feedback. [inaudible].

there is echo do you have 2 devices phone and computer open? please use one. mary alivesa? why don't we try again. use one device. >> okay. do you have your computer on and your phone? and the tv? okay. there is echo. okay. how do i -- had i hit -- we will

come back to her. the phone number ending in 5011? go ahead. the number ending in 5011. >> you need to. >> hi. >> go ahead. >> i'm boon and i took many of the photo this is supervisor engardio showed tonight. reason i did this i live near the great highway and live instead city for many years and love going out there and seeing the joy this people feel on the great highway every weekend when it is shut down. it is in the a tactic to show happiness and just sense of community people experience every weekends. it is simple low the truth. please reject the sxael support pilot program. >> thank you. >> mary elisa, go ahead. unmute yourself.

yes. >> okay is it working >> yes. go ahead. >> perfect. >> okay. >> i sent a letter earlier for records on the question you support appeal before you. we keep hearing the purpose of the pilot is to garth data. what data are than i collecting. when questions are they asking and how does this pilot help them collect the data? the great highway is a route for people driving through the establishment it is per of the 49 mile scenic drive and serves an important part of the public evacuation plan. we private vehicles are in the allowed during emergencies how fast will they open to the public where emergency evacuation when is it is closeed vehicle traffic?

>> i will request you support the appeal, thank you. >> thank you >> is there further public comment on zoom? raise your hand. >> okay i don't see. so commissioners. matter is submitted. >> commissioners. we -- before we jump into to the discussion, whichil start with commissioner trasvina. would you mind telling us what the standard review is. the votes required. we have not had an appeal like this in 12 years and change. just to quick reminder for all of us >> the standards of review is de novo under the provision that governs this board. a super majority 4 votes.

all of the commissioners here this evening would be required in order to over turn the permit and grant the appeal. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina? jury room thank you. thank you president lopez. i want to thank all of the public commenter. i said earlier that public commenters add to the process. i think the public commenters tonight as well as the city representatives and the appellates presented a very important cases and issues. this is not easy. not meant to be easy. our job is not necessarily to bless a political compromise. it is not to evaluate the relative benefits or losses. on the closure to decision those are important and i believe we heard them all and listened. i hope this people feel we rapid

all the views before us tonight. >> we're not here to rebut the experience of dedicated san franciscans. the ones we heard tonight. it is also not to pass this measure along to the california coastal commission and say well, this i can handle it. let's go. >> we have to make a decision and a decision on legal compliance. and in this regard i have listened everybody i was guided by the city attorneys advice early 30 evening. defined local coastal program consistent with the wait appellate's described it. planning code, 330.5.2. part of the coastal zone permit procedures state that a coastal zone permit approved only upon findings of fact stake the project conformed to the requirement and objectives of

the san francisco local coastal program. and as the appellates point out there was no finding that in the coastal zone permit motion state its is consistent only with the western shores area plan. and as the city attorney pointed out there is more to it. i would say that despite obvious discomfort and concern, from many people who came tonight, i would grant the appeal. because it is i feel it does not reach the level of legal compliance that this board should bless the previous work of the various agencies i would support the appeal >> vice president. >> thank you, i want to echo what commissioner tras vain said the appellates and the public commenters and of course the city agency who is worked tirelessly on this. i believe mr. longly our legal

assistant said this broke a record for public comment the written submissions and i have respect for everybody who wants to in a minute public process. i think it is important and -- than we listen and we do read and you know -- it does absolutely come in our decisionmaking process. i'm still not sure how i'm voting on this i'm amenable to either way know there is are 4 up here and we need 4 votes to grant an appeal it is a fact. i honestly leaning against it. and here is why. i think in the long-term you know if the appellate arguments are to be accepted, i -- i'm not

confident on the abilitieen though i'm a stellar attorney i'm not can have the in my ability to write something like written findings that would contradict what has been presented here tonight. that said i'm amenable to granting the appeal on the strict legal grounds. but at the same time i feel like it might be a better fit on let the do as commissioner tras vain said take it to the coastal commission which is the exert in the area. you seen we hear a large andvator weave dochlt but we you know we are not experts and if we do not grant the appeal for

the appellates. the >> the other thing i wanted bring up going in this in my lines. is that you know -- regardless that the results of the appeal is, tonight, at this body, there is obviously a huge amount of -- interests by the general public both immediate outer sunset and you know special interest groups users of the highway everybody we heard from and prior to the meeting. and -- the reasons i have been digging in to a lot of the nitty-gritty details as far as beach acsxesz great highway access and parking and biking and a bridge area we did not get on traffic mitigation in the

sunset. it is a big deal. subject of 1500 pages of public comment we received. for this hearing. all of those are important. and here is the funny thing. everybody who contributed is right. the concerns of everybody both the people who are prousing the great highway as recreation space the people with environmental occurrence. traffic mitigation occurrence are all right, all valand i had all reasonable. you know. and i very00 it unfortunate the public left before dlksz tonight. but -- you know i very strongly encourage all the stake holders to keep pushing for changing that need to happen regardless what happens with the pilot for the traffic mitigation measures necessary for the sunset. chain of lake system out of

control. you know probably the slowest major thorough fair in the city there is a lot of i think areas far outside the scope of the appeal and valid. >> everybody to continue dog this. the park i imagine the people who live on low are great highway and 48th and 47th and all the streets i imagine what this has done to your home parking situations. you know. i live in the castro exit have enough complaints about the saturday night parking situation at my house. but. this is a very different ball game of all of this to say, i still don't know how i'm voting. i look forward to hearing from commissioner swig and lopez to see how they think. i am still willing to vote

either way tonight. i listened to public comment is echo with regard to public comment. i think this testimony i appreciate today tonight i listened hard and i had a lot of the same feelings as commissioner lemberg. it was interesting to me is -- everybody behaved in the way i thought they would. the environmental protection organizations. said, we want to do this pilot program because it is environmentally it will cut down autotraffic. environmentally friend low. people on bikes and all that

stuff i support. and this i agree w. and this is right. then, and then i heard the commenters. >> so this is great. you perform today how you would. >> and i'm not dismissing that i'm supporting that. okay. >> it is just the way it was. i listened to who was for and against. and i heard bernal heights i heard district 10. i heard every district outside of the community this is most affected by this act say, we love this! this is great! because we get to access to our beach. and then, with the exception i think of two. while one of the last speaks the gentlemen who dook the feetys and other said people are cranky i'm not dismissing you at all.

everybody else said, this sucks. where the traffic mitigation does not work. we got bumps. traffic. we can't get to work. bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, i'm listening to those people heavily. they live there. than i are directly impacted. and yes, the rest the city said, great idea this is wonderful we g. now we have pitted 2 elements of san francisco against each other. okay. that kind of caught my attention. therefore the majority rules. you know the people who live outside of that area vote yes. the people who suffer from the act of having that freeway closed they don't like it very much and suffer. the majority rules. that's the democratic way.

so that is the next thing. . park and rec don't come with a sales pitch it was ideological, biasd and without fact and i resent it. okay. mr. teague, as always you are wonderful. you try to make things on fact. and based things on structure. and i appreciate it. and it was all about the law and about process. i think you fell short a bit with supporting the facts. i agree with commissioner trasvina on that. and that is where i would lean toward the appellate. >> what will i -- can't get over is -- the the -- this is gone through a long process. it gone through hearings and the board of supervisors.

gone through legal challenge. gone through the voter of the people and the vote of the people is they wanted this to happen. therefore, in consideration of all those processes, aside from not dismissing i support it at this point. mr. trasvina, the people spoke and they want the great highway open. that would be the majority. i'm saying. do i just want to kick can and let the coastal commission do their job because i'm not an expert same as commissioner lemberg. so -- i, this is a tough one. majority rules. clearly. voters voted for at this time majority of the supervisors did it. again, i am not happy with park and rec they are driven and live nothing a cocoon enforcing

something upon the people you can have mr. ginsburg to call me and blast me that's afternooning i can take the hit from your department head. mr. teague built a case. on all the thing catharsis right and knows they like process and knows i like the law. so i'm in a quandary. guys. i could vote and the easy way would be to deny the appeal and let them appeal right to the coastal commission or if it gets to me and 3 commissioners to who support it i think i will be number 4. so. that being said. mr. president. have at it. gi will chime in before i see commissioner trasvina wants another word i will yield so you can address that. without trying to rebut either of my colleagues i respect and

see weather we vote the same way or not. i will say, observe that, there is some expertise we have and some we do not. people criticize us for getting involved on the issue we were not scientists this is true but we have experience in looking at regulations and legal compliance and the permitting processes that the city has. we do have expertise. i was reline on the city attorney's interception of the law and who our responsibility system. second point i would say is that it is true what on the propositions of the majority of the people voted for voting against prop i, however it was cast and voted in favor of what was going on in the great highway. this is the voters and citizens.

there are noncitizen who is live in the sun and he who live across the city not allowed vote. whether it is true the majorities of votes perhaps the majority of the citizens there are a lot we have a responsible to all of the san franciscans whether they are citizens or not. to beably to hear their vows and we heard people tonight. without check nothing citizen thing you can speak. everybody can speak. and we treat and listen to the users of the great highway. whether they are driving or whether they are roller blading, we treat them users and people affected. i say that it is in the clear to me that while i say it is clear earlier votes were we have a responsibility to look at our part of legal compliance and it is on that basis i encourage my colleagues to make a decision

and then whatever that decision may be if we roll in a twha is disruptef i assume there is an opportunity for either side to seek a rehearing and if we deny grant the appeal, i understand it and city attorney can correct me or elaborate. we will come back at a later date and establish our findings of fact. >> i believe that's what i understands from early. i do think well is time we can make a decision and there is time for the parties to continue on weigh in o our decision. whatever it may be tonight. >> yes, can i interrupt. clarification. mr. trasvina -- with with regard to finding the city attorney. help. if we and you know will not hurt

my feelings. i believe city attorney can tell me this. if we uphold the appeal and we have to come up with findings be prepared to address those findings tonight. and the issue about the written findings. based on your findings tonight or the reference to findings tonight. will be offered to mrs. rosenberg who will write up the findings with the support city attorney and present them for affirmation at a later point. tonight, we don't get to take the vote and come up with the findings. i believe that we have to present our general findings tonight on why we support the appeal. and then they will be written up and we come back and approve

that written findings. they have football delivered tonight. a point of order. >> yea. >> let me innerject. that was my next question. so. projecting forward. and i'm not sure this has been flushed out. for -- the parties or the public this evening. projecting forward. down the path of -- of -- um -- siding with the appellates. there is a question of findings. i think in what i understood was that that may be sent back to the planning commission potentially. what is the next step? with respect to findings of

fact. if we uphold the appeal? >> what section 330.5.1 requires is had let me finds that quote. >> that the board shall adopt findings this project is consistent or not consistent with the local coastal program. a coastal zone permit approved upon findings of fact it conforms to objectives of the local coastal program. it is the board were to grant the appeal. yes it would adopt findings that -- the permit is inconsistent with the local coastal program. if the board were to deny the appeal, it could make that decision this evening by adopting the findings set forth

in planning motion number 21437. i want to clarify something, i was confused by commissioner trasvina's comments that -- i want to make sure i was not offering an opinion whether they did or did not conform to the local coastal program. i was careful not to offer an opinion this is an ultimate opinion this is up to the board. i did not understand why my comment was taken to roach that conclusion. i didn't uponmented to be clear i did not offer an opinion on that what i offered an opinion on what the standards are. >> commissioner trasvina will take it to you before i jump in. you did not reach the ultimate

conclusion. but it was based upon your describing the components of the local coastal of the -- program that brought me to the conclusion i made. >> >> so, >> no , i want to i'm sorry. gi have one thing to add. if the board is inclined grant appeals with 4 votes we would continue the matter to a future date to prepare written findings to sfpt that decision. >> my point was to yes, i gray that was my. butt findings have to be am framed if not directly stated this evening to enable to you

write update findings for our approval. >> the local coastal program as a multitude of objections and policies. so i don't think that it is realistic for the board to make those detailed findings here. it is 10:35 in the evening. one suggestion if the board is inclineed side with appellates could direct them to prepare a draft of written findings. it could considering those. and then make changes it deems appropriate. then adopt them. if this is the direction the board is inclined go. >> we can't leave speaking from experience, when we had findings and on previous situations. we have to walk out of here with some conclubhousive direction and that direction can't be

because we don't like it. it has to be framed. i did not say stated with every i dotd and t crossed. but we, i for one will as much, if there were 3 votes, i would be number 4. i will put a caveat i will not be the fourth vote unless we have framed findings that support the support the -- necessity to provide something behind our motivation. it just does not work this way. we can't contrive it. and even if we say, we heard from the appellates that it is emergencies the research on emergency services is not conclusive. this the this will issue harmed or this will be harmed.

or neighbors -- that -- it -- even if we are not vague but not again dotted i's but in up with findings that are valid to the purpose of supporting our position this is find that is for jewel and he yourself to write up later and sign off on. championship is why we continue the case if -- we go in the direction. to say, okay we vote 4-0 and come up with findings later? that ain't going to fly for me. >> if i may. just so we can cut to the chase. and avoid hypotheticals upon hypotheticals. there are not 4 votes for this. i don't support the appeals. important to know. thank you very much. >> critical.

>> thank you. >> just so -- and i am -- baseing on 3:30.5.2. and i am convinced by mr. teague's position. that the planning commission did on the whole, base its decisions on on findings of fact. based on the lcp as a whole. i think the reading of specific items of its decision, in saying that the entire -- lcp was not specify in the every single paragraph and line. -- i think its -- its -- a bit too formalistic of a reading.

>> i did -- read the -- -- mentions of -- the planning code, which i understood to incorporate the implementation component of the lcp i think that was properly considered. and i think this findings of fact were -- straebed relating to the project. and so -- that's i money that is that's where i land. i think -- that does not take away from the appreciation i have for everybody who spoke this evening. it does in the take away from the fact than i feel that the appellates were very persuasive

and -- represented themselves extremely well this evening. i feel that the speak is well represented this evening. and but yea. i think that the fact that 5, 330.5.2 refers to requirements of a program. not requirements of the code it is requirements of a program requirements and objectives of a program. programs and plans have a multitude of factors and obbeingjectives and requirements and in tension with one another. and for us to say that planning commission ladies and gentlemen

of the planning commission, you heard this, you listened to i would imagine many of the same positions you heard this evening. you examined the facts, closer to the -- than we are. because they work with a more directly regular than we do. and xrm for us to say, you did not reach an appropriate conclusion based on the facts presented before you; it feels with 9-0 vote, by the way. it feels a little against normalistic to base that in to some extent based on how the decision was drafted. and so, i do think that --

distinction between the code versus programs and plans. is determinative. in my mind. we have other context, plans that come before of you know us with respect to other permits. where you know sometimes with multii factor tests than i are in conflict with one another. it would be impossible to characterize those as requirements. and that's why -- you are talking about the general plan. plan for a certain neighborhood. sometimes those plans say we need to address park and pedestrian access. and -- the conformity with the general nature of the neighborhood. i think all that is to say --

you know as much as i impressed by the case that the appellates presented. and as much as i -- am sympathetic to and i agree by the way with the -- observation this commissioner swig made with respect to when parts of town or supporting this and who is against it. well no surprise the folk who is deal with the negativeities of the pilot in their neighborhoods at their front door they are against it. but this is also a pilot. and as much as sometimes felt dismissive to hear this from our representative this is is a pilot. the end of the day it does it is communicateing -- we are garthing the data, and this data

will include the assessments whether the traffic mitigations are sufficient for the folks against this project. as was repeated anything outside further of that pilot we are starting from square one with the benefit of data will be collected if this moves forward in the ballots over the next couple years. so, absolutely sympathetic to everybody who showed up this evening. you know with those valid complaints. about the impacts in the neighborhood. the other thing i would add is -- just because the pilot is potentially, uh, mitigating factors that can be implemented. uh, outside of the pilot to address some of those concerns, whether it's, uh,

further traffic, uh, you know, mitigation efforts, whether it's , you know, policing of these corridors or particularly impacted, whether it's, uh, the, uh, taking action with respect to the sand dunes. i don't see anything in the, in the, in the plan or in the pilot that prohibits any of those things from moving forward. so uh, that's, that's where i am. uh, i'm as with, with with all things before us, and i respect, uh, the views and opinions of my fellow commissioners. uh, so i don't want to be too, uh, i guess i don't want to completely foreclose the possibility of changing my mind. uh, and i'm open to that, as i always am. but but, uh, as it stands now, i wouldn't be the fourth vote, and

i see next on the on the list here is, uh, commissioner trasvina. thank you. thank you, president lopez and my colleagues, i would say that, um , we can call it a pilot. it's real. every weekend. it's real if you can't get across, if you have a car, if it's real, if you previously drove down a great highway with your mother or grandmother and wheelchair, and this was or in a car, because there not mobile, it's real. so we can call it a pilot. uh, but it's not a pilot for the snowy plovers. it's not a pilot for the process. yes, i agree there are other experts on other aspects, but i worry about over deference to some some of some of these commissions and boards and agencies because we've seen

often a lot of shortcuts, some times the shortcuts are because of the presentation are made and, and the presentations come before us, whether they're for pr campaign or whether they're something else. people can describe it in any way they want . uh, but there are shortcomings and, and our job is to make sure that there is compliance. and as i read, 330 .5.2, it's an attempt. there's a lot, a lot of, um, uh uh, jumping on the train to get this done, but it's not compliant. so, uh, but we need to have four votes. uh, i don't know whether commissioner eppler's absence has an impact. i don't know what our vote's going to be. uh, but i, i am mindful of the worry and the impact that that a vote to uphold the appeal will would have on san franciscans. but i

also think it's also important that the agency is here and the public hears that this body is a board of appeals, will hear the appeals and will decide on, uh, what our view of the law is and of the merits. and obviously we have differences of views up here. uh, but i just want to express my reasons for, for, uh, supporting, supporting the appeal. uh, as difficult as it may be and as easy it might be to just send it off to the california coastal commission. i think we need to decide. and i agree with commissioner swig, if we decide we need to have some findings of fact. thank you. commissioner. commissioner swig, can i just interject quickly? uh, if there are three votes in support of granting the appeals before taking a vote, you may want to. under the rules, typically the matter would be continued to see if the vote of the absent commissioner would make a difference. so thank you. you can pull among yourselves to

see where you stand. it sounds good, commissioner swig. i hate to be squishy. um my president deserves to be president because he makes good points. uh, and, um, i look at, uh, mr. teague and the points that you made with regard to mr. teague and how he framed it and the global nature of this, the direction again, i'm reminded by yourself, thank you very much of a point that i, i wrote down, but i didn't pay attention to and something that mr. teague pointed out we are not driven by as we are when we're doing a building permit. we're not driven by one, two, three, four, section one, two, three, four, which is very clear that it says it has to be three inches. right. uh, we're not this is this is more a, a general policy

or a compliance. this is a general direction. compliance science. uh, to the local coast program. so thank you very much for, uh, for making me revisit that it and based on that, that, uh, mr. teague did the best possible job that he, he could because really, there aren't that many, uh, specific, uh, specific guides lines as we would have in a building permit. and so i, i agree with you in, in, in your position and you have swayed me. um and so you and you swayed me. so i still don't know, but you swayed me. i don't i'm not. i'm not there yet. okay um, the thing that bugs me is, is that i don't if i was, uh, taking the position that i advocated, that i just said i would, that i'd be the

fourth vote. i can't write the findings because i can't come up with the. i'm sitting here trying to find out. right. what what would my findings be that would support our decision? i cannot do that. and, you know, you guys know me pretty well. uh, i, i come up with findings pretty, pretty quickly if i'm passionate about a direction, i can't find findings. if i can't find findings, then i, i i'm not i'm not standing on solid ground to you know, to vote in favor of the appellants who i also agree were very, very convincing. and i agree with them on so many of their points of view. so because i can't come up with findings and i'll see if the other guys can, uh, and because i you've swayed me, then i think i'm, i'm swaying a little bit. now that being said, i know i'm picking on a park and rec. rec and park. i can't remember which it is.

sorry, guys. um, i would hope. i would really hope that you don't let your ideological or your whatever departmental, uh, philosophy or theology or ideology, whatever ever get in in the way of making a fair move on this. this is if we move forward and this is a pilot project, and i would hope that if this pilot project is condoned and that you look at this fairly evenly, that you do your research completely and not go the way that i feel that you're going, which is it's a slam dunk, it's done. and if we and to mr. trevino's point, it's permanent and that's what scares me the most. i quite frankly don't trust you guys. okay again, your boss can call me tomorrow and blast me, but i think you're i think you're railroading it. i think you're steamrolling it. i don't think

you're listening to the appellants. i don't think you're listening to the community. i think you have it in mind that you guys want to do what you guys want to do, because none of you backed your statements up with really solid facts. you said you did, but i didn't hear them. i heard them from mr. teague. i didn't hear them from you. so i just beg you, be fair to take your bias away and stow it in. in the cloak room. when this pilot program, um, is complete. and be fair to the community and be fair to the neighborhood. you can't speak, you can't speak. sorry. you can sit down because you're not called on. you can't speak. you can't speak because you're not called on. mr. president, may i please respond? no no. if you're asked a question by by a commissioner, uh, you can speak, but otherwise we're in deliberation. question, please. okay, okay. so i'm just i'm just letting you know. so. so. mr.

teague, thank you very much for your points of view, which have swayed me. uh, park and rec. i'm not trusting your position, but but my present has swayed me, and i and i think this will go to a higher power anyway, so let's go. let's go for it. you know, and i can't find the findings. you guys want to come up with findings, and they can and they they convince me i'll be there right with you for sure . so, mr. lemberg, now that i've. now that i've completed destroyed our relationship with park and rec, um, there's just a few more things i wanted to add. uh, number one, something i didn't talk about earlier, which specifically was something from mr. moore's brief. um, regarding , uh, a plea to the city to be creating and implementing a comprehensive erosion and wastewater infrastructure and coastal land plan. i really wanted to kind of just endorse that idea. um, and tonight, as

in many other previous hearings, i've heard a lot of, uh, well, this isn't in our jurisdiction. this is in their jurisdiction. talk from various city departments. um, and. ultimately all of the all of the city department heads are all under one umbrella, and that is the city government overall. and i would really love to see, uh, an affirmative plan to address all of those environmental concerns, ones which are very real and very, you know, very harmful. and i think, uh, you know, there's obviously been some attention to this being as the coastal sorry, i'm forgetting acronyms. it's late. the clp, uh, was somewhat revised in 2018, which wasn't that long ago. um so there's definitely some attention to this matter, but i would say not enough overall, uh, and, you know, affirmatively working and, you know, reaching out to the

coastal commission who really is the, the, the, the chief of, of coastal policies, i think is a very would be a very helpful thing overall for the city. and i really did want to endorse that idea, even though it's pretty far outside of the scope of what we're able to do here tonight. um i also want to say i , i do i do want to acknowledge that president lopez swayed me some as well. um, for the following reasons. uh number one, for similar to the reasons that commissioner swig said, i, i'm struggling to think of findings that we could implement based on this. and i do, uh, i do think that mr. teague and planning really did come up with the best possible. i, you know, the best possible solution to this. and the two words that have stuck out to me, um, as time's gone on tonight, are, on balance, which ultimately is how things with numerous factors are decided. and, um, you know, it's not if one little thing is out

of place, it's, you know, it's totally out of the question. it's everything has to be considered. um and ultimately, you know, i think even the best possible all, you know, with the , with the opinion most, uh, favorable to the to the appellants, um, it is you know, lack of compliance with the one objective that really is, is what we're able to decide this particular permit based on. that's not to say there aren't other grounds that are, you know, potentially, um, you know, winning arguments. i don't know, i'm not a coastal policy expert. this is my first time ever hearing something on this subject before. um, and the other thing that i've, i've continued to think about. and this isn't anyone in this room's fault. um, it's ultimately, uh, you know, a holistic city failure over the course of a

time period longer than i've been alive, uh, since the first, uh, since the coastal act was passed in 1986. um you know, the fact that san francisco has not amended this significant. since 1986, um, is pretty alarming. and again, it's not anyone in the room. tonight's fault that that's the case. it's just, you know, kind of. it's been almost 40 years. and the coastal and the coastal act is a really important thing under california policy. and the fact seems to be that, um, you know, san francisco's kind of ignored it. uh, that's that seems to have been the, the primary, uh, mechanism is, is ignoring it. uh as long as they can and again, not saying not not putting this on anyone in the room tonight because it's not on you. um all we can do is move forward the best way we can. and that's that's that's all we've got as far as that goes. um, and i will also add that the 1986, uh,

western. i'm again, sorry for getting acronyms. the, the san francisco implementation of this was drafted. so vaguely, um, and it is so out of date in so many ways that strict compliance with it is nearly impossible for anything. um, and i've, you know, i during the hearing tonight, i was looking up the, the state bill to exempt urban zones from, uh, from the coastal act altogether, which i think is a terrible solution. but again, outside of the scope of what we're talking about tonight. but, um, i could see where the drive for that comes from in that it's, you know, i can't even imagine the complexity involved in trying to engage in good faith compliance with this act and this local implementation. it's just astoundingly complex to me. and i like to think i'm someone who likes to handle astoundingly complex problems. so um. i am

relatively swayed by president lopez's facts and also what where commissioner swigs come out on this. um. i'm still willing to be swayed if commissioner trasvina can come up with some really solid findings, but i, i think i probably know where i'm voting. commissioner trasvina. i would note that it, uh, it goes back even earlier than 1986, goes back to 1970, 1974. and man by the name of george mosconi, our state senator at the time, was a leader on the on the coastal issues, on environmental protection and he's gone and we've we've lost a lot in environmental protection over the years to the various, uh, administrations completely unrelated to the people here. but for tonight, uh, since we

are talking about the coast, i, i, uh, i sense the tide moving out and, uh, perhaps earlier there might have been the votes to, uh, grant this appeal. uh, but i think from respecting my colleagues and, uh, respecting the all of the work that's gone into this tonight, uh, i will i will not vote to, uh, to deny the appeal. uh, but i, i think it's i think we're probably ready. ready to vote. i don't think commissioner eppler's absence, uh, will have any impact on this vote. thank you. um, i'll just say a couple of quick things. um uh, first, i think with respect to the, uh, to rec and park, i do i do want to say that, uh, that i thank you for your testimony and, uh,

i, i did see, uh, i think some sometimes, you know, we as, as a body, as commissioners may, may, um, expect certain things from the testimony. and if it's not there and we have, uh, you know, in a, in important matter of public concern with, with a lot of, of, uh, valid points from the appellants and a lot of you know, public concern being expressed, you know, frustrations can can arise. uh, i also like to, uh, kind of abide by the policy of assuming good intention. and i did see, uh, a lot of effort to address, uh, our questions in, in real time. and so i appreciate that. and i appreciate your service to the city. and, um, and in cognizant that we're we're all

part of a big city family, as corny as that may sound. but, uh, appreciate your, your, your presence here this evening and your service. um, the second thing i'll say is, um, you know, i'd be remiss if i didn't point out that, you know, back to the, the points that that commissioner swig made about, hey, we're in the city. uh, are are are these cries for help coming from, uh, and having those be in, in, you know, many respects, being related to, uh, not entirely, but but a significant portion being related to traffic impacts. you know, that we have a representative from the sfmta here this evening. um, i guess we don't oversee all aspects of the sfmta's operations, but but i would respectfully be, uh, ask

that that those those concerns, which i think are very valid, that they be taken into account and looked into to seriously, um, and if anything, like, like with some of the, um, some of the points that we discussed, uh, with the, with the previous matter, i would submit to my fellow commissioners that it may be something that we, we, we take up as something to agendize as something else that's surfaced before the board. but that is, is, uh, in my opinion, probably outside of our jurisdiction in terms of the four corners of this permit. but maybe something that we would consider, um, uh, you know, presenting in a more formal way to the, to the relevant department. um uh, commissioner swig, i see you on the. sure. is the motion still in place? uh, commissioner, or did you make a

formal motion? i don't think we have a motion. okay, then i'll make a motion. uh, first of all, with regard to park and rec, i love park and rec. i didn't like tonight. all right? i have great respect for park and rec. i enjoy the way the park and rec manages our many, many parks advocates open space. uh, takes care of golden gate park, takes care of dubose park, takes care of, uh, dolores park. takes care of the marina in front of me. uh, it's hard work. i see the hard work on day to day basis. i appreciate that hard work and so there's nothing that i said tonight that is meant to, uh, dump on park and rec. i didn't like your presentation tonight, and i found some bias. that's just tonight. and that's just about the this item. but it is not to say that i don't love park and rec, and i don't love my city family members. and i have three sisters. i fight with them all the time. so you know, sometimes we have fights and i and i hope you will appreciate

not necessarily agree because i don't i don't know i know that you guys don't agree, but that you appreciate my point of view and that i listen to you. and i just happen to disagree. so that's the that's the bottom line. so i'd like to make a motion that we deny the appeal. uh, and based on and uphold the findings of the, the planning department as they set forth with the compliance. i guess the required, uh, local coastal program. i think that's the proper that's close. thank you. close. not bad at 11:00 at night. uh, okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeals and uphold the coastal zone permit on the basis that the project conforms to the requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program. and with the adoption adoption of findings one through nine found in planning commission motion number 21437. on that motion, president lopez, commissioner. trevino. no.

commissioner. vice president. lemberg. i okay, so that motion carries 3 to 0 and the appeals are denied. three one 3 to 1 one. i'm sorry. sorry. 3 to 1. it's getting late. it's 1107. uh, we do have one more item. thank you. everyone um, we do have one more item. item number six is the adoption of the board's budget. this is a discussion of possible adoption of the department budget for fiscal year 25. and 26. so so i'll. commissioners you've had an opportunity to review it. uh given the late hour, i don't see we have any public comment here. do you have any questions for me ? the comment section? sure. um sure. go ahead. i just like to suggest that perhaps some funding in the budget allocated to provide training or professionalism training to this

board on decorum and the treatment of city staff, because i was really upset by what i witnessed tonight. and i a lot of people were online too. so i hope that in the future the budget could consider ways to provide that kind of training so that something like this never happens again. thank you. thank you. is there any further public comment? i see someone raising their hand, uh, in zoom. okay. no, the hand is down. commissioners, did you have any questions or did you want to add anything? commissioner lundberg i just a quick comment. not really a question. i just want to thank you. julie for your astounding, uh, attention to detail in preparing this, uh, in such a fashion that i don't actually have any questions about it. you're so good at your job, and we really. i really appreciate you. that's very kind. and i just want to say that i would be lost without alec because he is really you

know, he's incredible. everything he does and gmr as well. we have an excellent staff and i am extremely grateful for all three of you and, and, uh, and you've made our job in approving this, uh, pretty simple in my opinion. well, thank you so much. it's very appreciated. so we do need a motion to adopt the budget. i move to adopt the budget. okay. on that motion, president lopez, a commissioner trevino, i commit . aye. so that motion carries 4 to 0. and the budget is adopted. and thank you so much.

shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well.

we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service

stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so.

regular hearing for thursday, february 8th, 2024. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions. clapping or cheering for. finally, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and at this time, i'll take roll commission. president diamond