ongoing exhibitions here t t t t >> good evening and welcome to march 13, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president lopez will be the presiding officer and joined by commissioner lum berg, commissioner swig, commissioner eppler and . i'm julie rosenberg the board executive director and joined from the city departments presenting before the board.

we have corey the zoning administrator representing the planning department and kevin birmingham with department of building inspection. the board request you turn off or silence phones and electroning devices. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are as follows:for rehearing and jurisdiction request the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. members not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. time is limited to two minutes if large number of speakers. there will be a verbal warning 30 secondss before the time is up. grant rehearing or jurisdiction request. if you have questions about the board rules or hearing schedules e-mail board of appeals@sfgov a.org. sfgovtv is broadcasting and

streaming live and have the ability to receive public comment. go to sfgovtv. a link to the live it stream is found on the home page at sfgov.org/boa. public comment could be provided in three ways, in person, via zoom, go to the website, click on hearings and the zoom link or telephone. call 1-669-900-6933 and enter 8755336. the instructions are streaming across the screen. to block your phone number when calling dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for public comment for your item to be called and dial star 9 equivalent of raising

your hand. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you will have 1 to 3 minutes depending on the volume of speakers. or legal assistant will provide a verbal learning. there is delay between the live proceedings and broadcast and live streamed, it is very important people calling in reduce or turn off. if any participants are attendees on zoom need disability accommodation you can make a request in the chat function the board legal assistant or send e-mail to boardofappeals@sfgov.org. we'll take public comment first from those physically prenlt in the hearing room. we swear in or affirm all who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking a oath.

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give testimony weight, raise your right hand and say, i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are par ticipant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker only mute. item 1 is general public comment. is anyone who wishes to speak on a item not on tonight's calendar? i'll check on zoom. i dont see anyone raising their hand so we'll move to item 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners. i do have one thing that i want to say, so i wanted to start by

noting that a couple meetings ago i was out. i had a family commitment and in that meeting commissioner swig made comments during this portion of the agenda. i would be remiss if i didn't thank you commissioner swig for your statement. i think in public life it is all too rare to hear public apologies, to hear folks with power take on ownership for their words for their actions, so i want to thank you for your leadership, commissioner swig. i think related to those comments, to those events, i learned that rec and park won't be appearing in person during

today's meeting and i understand that that's due to some of those issue s that have arisen in prior meetings. i just want to say publicly that i'm very sorry about that. i am very disappointed. i think it hurts our decision making process, and to anyone listening from rec and park, please know we want you back. please know that i'm hopeful we can rebuild a relationship of trust and mutual respect, to have you back in the room some time soon. to that end, i view these events as really a opportunity for us to reflect on the importance of the city's equitable fair and respectful

workplace policy. i think what this situation is servicing for me is how much our duties depend on relationships and really we are reliant on information that we don't have at our fingertips, but for those relationships, so that currency of information that we get from parties, from the departments, from the public really depends on developing and maintaining those relationships. and really the city's policy gives us a roadmap for that, and i just wanted to state that publicly that my individual conversations with our

commissioners i know that's understood and valued by this commission. i know that with respect to some departments or people who appeared before us, we have work to do to rebuild that relationship and i'm confident that we will. to that end, i think in the liberty of asking our executive director to reach out to dhr for training opportunities on the city's policy, i think that it makes sense to add that to our training stack for this commission and so that's a commitment that i like to make to all the parties before us to the departments to the public that that's something that we'll take this opportunity to

reflect on to be able to pause and undergo these trainings to underscore the importance that communication, that relationship building and the workplace policy, so there will be more info to come on that, my fellow commissioners, but i did want to make that known that is something that we'll be incorporating going forward. thanks. >> commissioner trasvina. >> thank you and thank you president lopez for your comments. i am aastonished. i heard earlier today rec and park wasn't going to be here. i hope that they also reflect upon this situation and they get some training, because i find it unacceptable for a city

agency, entire agency not to send someone to a hearing on a rehearing matter. yes, there were words exchanged in the heat of one item, and i won't try to describe commissioner swig's words. he has described them. we heard them. he acknowledged them. he apologyed for them, but for a agency to then intentionally say that they are not coming to another governmental agency, they are treating everyone, this body, this board of appeals, the other litigants, the appellates, the public. we have a public responsibility and i would have hoped whatever was going on was resolved, but to hear that on a matter of

such importance we had three thousand pages of hearing record presented. very very concerned people on both sides of a issue, and i will get into the substance later, but just astonished and i would hope whoever is running things at rec and park reconsiders their actions and looks introspectively at fulfilling their responsibility to the people of san francisco. >> thank you. >> just one more thing. so, i am in touch with the director, with the general manager, mr. ginsberg at rec and park, and plan to discuss the next steps to bring them back before us and so that's is

definitely top of mind and like i said, i am hopeful that we can get there, and agree that this status quo for today is damaging to the process and i think it hurts our process, it hurts our ability to get the best information and so that's definitely on the roadmap. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? anybody in the room? anybody on zoom? i see one hand raised. martin munos. that person just disappeared. i see somebody in the room.

>> i'm astonished that rec and park is not here, and i think that goes to a couple of things. first of all, it is not what happened between commissioner swig and rec and park, it is that their case is pretty weak, and they are using this as a excuse not to show up, and i hope this is not going to be held against the appellates. i hope it is held against rec and park, because they're not here to defend themselves. in the court of law, if you don't show what happens? they are not here, so please do not reward them for their bad behavior. they are public employees. they are paid by the taxpayers to be here, not to say, my feelings are hurt and the whole department not come. and that is-i'm just astonished

this-this is unreasonable, so please don't hold this against the appellate, but do hold it against rec and park. thank you. >> thank you. can you fill out a speaker card, ma'am, please? so we can get the minutes correct. there is a speaker card. thank you. i do see some public comment on zoom. martin munos, please go ahead. >> thank you. sorry, i think my hand was raised and unraised. hi, i'm speaking in favor of the great highway park and the-speaking directly to the appellates really, not to the commission. >> sir, we are on commissioner comments and questions. are you commenting on what the commissioners said? because you will have a opportunity later to talk about the rehearing request. >> rpd not be in the room. for me, it is a very reasonable thing, especially after an

election-public meetings in the dozens, the board of supervisors passing this. the district supervisors passing this. again, an election. i mean, this is beyond egregious what is happening here at the board of appeals, so i don't blame rpd and anyway, that's my comment. >> okay, thank you. the next caller, says call in user number 1. please go ahead. you may have to press star-you are not othen phone. can you unmute? go ahead. >> hello. i just want to say that as evidenced by rec and park non appearance they are enforcing the public opinion that they are acting without any community input and that they

really don't care about our safety or what we have to say, otherwise they would be here. that's pretty much my comment. and i support the first person who spoke eloquently much more then i do. i support what she said. >> thank you. are there any- >> thank you. >> any further public comment? i don't see any, so we'll move to item 3 adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the february 28, 2024 meeting. >> i just caught two typos i wanted to correct before we make a motion. sorry didn't submit ahead of time. item 1, under the speaker's paragraph, it should be take a trip to jfk and chain of lakes.

not chain of lights and chain and lake should be capitalized? >> are you sure? >> yes. >> chain of lights and that is a proper noun? >> item 6 under public comment where it says san francisco chamber of commerce, the francisco is misspelled, missing a s. >> thank you for that. >> that's all i got. >> do we have a motion to adopt the minutes as amended by vice president lemberg. >> i move we adopt the minutes. >> okay, on that motion president lopez, aye. trasvina, aye. lemberg, aye. swig, aye. the motion carries and minutes are adopted as amended. okay, we are moving on to item number 4a and 4b.

jurisdiction request number 1 and number 3. 1920 pacific avenue. asking the board to take jurisdiction over alteration permit 2020/09/16/4264. the appeal period ended on october 1, 2020 and there jurisdiction request filed february 20, 2024. the permit description removed dry rotted wood enclosure around garbage and replace not visible from street. for jurisdiction request 3, asking the board to take jurisdiction over permit number 2021/02/22/5095. the appeal period ended november 28, 2022 and request was filed at board office february 27, 2024.

the permit description is add 4 accessory dwelling units to ground floor parking per ordinance 162-16 to the existing 12 residential units. and provide sprinklers at the ground floor per nfpa13. we will hear from the requesters first. mr. lall, you have 6 minutes. >> do you mind if i use the podium here? >> no problem. you need to set your-- >> thank you. >> presentation up. once you are ready we'll start the clock for 6 minutes. >> i'm ready. quite a set up here. thank you for having me here. my name is vishal lall, my wife is not here today and traveling. i work in the valley and choose to live in the city. we livled her 20 years now. i'm here in front of you today to request jurisdiction on two permits that were issued for

building adu in the adjacent apartment building. the address is 1920 pacific. to start off for the record, i [indiscernible] building new units in the city, we need that and hundred percent supportive of building adu. i have no issue with that. but let me give yukon text. we bought our house during the pandemic and didn't move into last year because we were up grading the foundation and that takez some time. during this time, the apartment building nextdoor was bought. they are pretty notorious and had a reputation in the city not for good reasons for sure and mostly mistreating the tenants. there is a detailed article on the model in the san francisco chronicle in september 22. i want to quote from the

article, bad faith intimidation, harassment, mistreatment and abuse is the reputation the company carries. they are my next door neighbor. i cite this for a specific reason. they bought the same operating model to construction and the construction next door. as i uncovered over the past few weeks, they have extended this operating model to get permit for the adu next door. these permits are built on a foundation of lies and misrepresentation. lies and misrepresentations to us as a community, but also the same lies and misrepresentations to the city planning department. and this lead to the city to inadvertently approve the permits. they haven't known about the lies and misrepresentations. they took vartos assertions on face value and inadvertentedly granted the permits. the project is very different then portrayed. details of the lies and

misrepresentations are in the document i submitted to the board. i assuming you read them and understand you read them so i don't want to rehash them. vartos response to the request, [indiscernible] is telling. they do not deny any of my assertions. all they claim is since the lies and misrepresentations were not caught before the construction started, they are in the free and clear and should keep going and hence, i ask you and request you to do deny their request. in my humble opinion this is unacceptable. i dont think it reflects our cultures and values and these type of incidents erode trust in the city institutions . the sit city has to take a stand they won't stand behinds the permits since the lies and misrepresentations have not been uncovered. i'm not asking you to overturn anything.

i ask you to give me a chance to appeal this. all i want to do is get a chance to bring facts to you, bring information to you. president lopez you talked about the value of information in the opening remarks. i ask for you--i'm not in the business of construction or planning. i work in the valley. i have a day job and took me quite some time to figure how to move forward to protect my interests. as i said from your charter, you are the only entity in the city of san francisco with a agreement to suspend a permit and right a wrong and hence i'm in front of you. i believe that there is grave injustice here. i appeal for you to give me a chance to appeal and open this case. i know you will have bigger issues to deal with, i heard one as we started. i know it is a smaller issue but a big one for me.

i appreciate the time and thank you for the consideration and thank you for your time. thank you very much. >> thank you. we do have a question from commissioner trasvina. mr. law. >> thank you for your testimony coming before us today. can you specify-you talked about lies, misrepresentations and grave injustice. can you specify for the record specifically the examples? >> yes, sir. two of them. one for each permit. like i said, there are smaller issues but may matter to me ask i can get into details. number one, the first permit was based on removing existing structure and rebuilding it. i have pictures that i submitted there was no existing structure there. they just built it. and we were under construction-i was not living in the house and could not see on day to day basis. this was-there are pictures

before and after. you see there was no existing structure, even though the permit clearly says, they were rebuilding a structure because there was dry rot. number two, on the second very specific issue i have is around fire escapes. they relocate fire escapes towards my house. i'm not protesting building adu's, the representation they had for me was when i first spoke, the architect it was 3 to 5 feet away from my property line. it is 18 inches from the property line. it comes to bear. so those are very specific issues i would highlight to your specific question. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the representative for the permit holder. welcome, you have three minutes. we won't start the clock till you are ready.

>> good afternoon. juster zucker on behalf of the permit holders. we are here on jurisdiction request which has a exacting legal standard to be granted in extraordinary circumstances when you the board finds the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the reing to be late. as discussed and shown, the city did not cause or intentionally the requester to be late in the filing. with regards to why the requesting was late to filing of their jurisdiction request and the adu permit they state the basis was they were not given final approved plans and didn't have the opportunity to appeal and that the permit for the enclosure trash was under false premises and issued in error. however, the standard here is not whether there was a abuse of discretion or error issuing the permit it is whether the

city caused the requesting to be late in filing. the requester has been aware of the adu project for years by this point. in december of 2020, preapplication meeting notice sent out and circulated as seen here. the requester was provided the notice long with the plans. since december 2020 the requester has been in communication with the permit holder as noted in the materials. they included the correspondence we had since december and said we would look into things but the plans have not changed since that time, the fire escapes are where they are since the permits were circulated. the city had no requirement to provide notice of the permit approval. in this instance, not withstanding being made aware of the project in 2020, no block notification request has been made so the city has no obigation to provide notice.

the construction is no side setback that require a variance and any other type of notice that would be associated with a variance. per 1996 interpretation for neighborhood notice, fire escapes do not require neighborhood notice and as such it was not provided and most recently just a couple weeks ago the za interpretation from the 28 february, fire escapes aret nosubject to notice when out of priority geography sud. as mentioned the city isn't required to approve the plans. circulate the plans, however, the plans have been on site along with approved job card can and permit as required by building code and plans and permit documents have been available online on the city resources for quite some time. as noted, we provided plans to

the requester in december 2020. they have been online since november 2021 and the permit was issued november 2022 a year later. the applicant had plenty time to review plans for the project. with regard to the trash enclosure, there was dry rot addressed initially and then through the adu permit the enclosure was added. as you can see here, right here, no enclosure in the existing plans, but when completed in the proposed plans, the full enclosure, the closing that area. i think there may be nuance with respect to the walls as shown in the permit holder's brief. there was wood behind there and it wasn't fully enclosed in 2020, but there was wood that needed replacement. with regards to being put on notice of the project as

mentioned, the permit issued november 2022, construction started in summer 2023 with significant movement. there was concrete pouring of the foundation in july that was final inspected and rough framing. all the activities are onerous and create noise and would have put anyone on notice of a project there. with that, i leave it there, but if you have any questions, i and the applicant permit holder are available. >> thank you. i dont see any questions at this time. we will now hear from the planning department. >> good evening president lopez. corey, we are here discussing jurisdiction request for two permits 1920 pacific avenue, one was adu permit and the

other one a separate permit for the enclosure fill-in. to be clear on this standard regarding where or not the city caused late filing an appeal, neither of the permits would have required any neighborhood notice. additionally, no black book notation was recorded on this property, which neighbors or organizations can request for and ask to receive notification for certain type of permits, therefore from the planning department perspective there was no required notice that was failed to be provided, so from a planning department perspective, this would not seem to meet the bar for jurisdiction request. i will note also, there is other agreement information or issues related between the two parties the planning department would not have had any part in and there is also distinction

between whether or not this permit was processed in a way that prevented the requester from filing an appeal, which is one issue. separate questions about something being enacterate or any other violation. there is a opportunity for a complaint to be filed and we would investigate that to the fullest, but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> yes, thank you for the testimony. mr. lall described lies and misrepresentation and grave injustice and i asked him to be specific and i want to ask the second one, he said the fire escape was too close. the plans it says 5 feet and in realty it is a foot and a half. >> my understanding from the plans is they are not 5 feet away. they were built out accurately per the plans and i know my colleague from dbi can speak to

that more specifically then i can, but my understanding is there plans are accurate in terms how they were built out. >> is a 18 inch distance with a fire escape leaving aside all the procedural issues everyone talked about, is that something he can complain to the city about the fire escape 18 inches away or is that something that would be legal? >> speaking only from a planning code perspective, there would be no problem with a fire escape being within 18 inches of a property line. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from dbi. >> good evening. this is kevin birmingham representing the building department. on the first permit for the trash enclosure, we are under the assumption the information provided is correct, however,

the appellate does have the opportunity to file a complaint. we will investigate it if we find and can revoke and take steps to correct, but he does have options as far as that goes. as far as the fire escape, i talked to the plan checker and the plan checker senior and were not aware there was a specific agreement in place as to how far away from the property line the fire escape would be. the fire escape is approved approved under a ab measure, the fire reviewed it, plan check reviewed it, it was issued properly. the only thing i can say is if there was a dispute it would be a property line dispute and civil matter if there was agreement in place between the two parties it would be a certain distance off the property line but it was properly reviewed and approved

and we would say deny the appeal. you have any questions? >> commissioner eppler. >> i just want to clarify with respect to the plans showing the fire escape, there is only-have there only been one set of plans submitted? have the plans been amended or changed after submitted? >> somewhat. on the plot it shows the fire escape fairly close to the building, however there is note on the front page that says the fire escape plans are filed under separate addendum, when is it ab019 for the fire escape, which the fire department reviews. but, i could not tell if that was just not properly depicted on the plot plan. i asked the plan checker and he says even though there is a little discrepancy it is nothing they would have raised a red flag about. >> maybe not, is there

discrepancy how close the fire escape is to the petitioner's property? >> it is hard to tell because there is no dimensions on the plans until you come to the exploded fire escape plan so nothing on the plan that says it is 3 feet. it is only in the front, the one in the back is 4 or 5 feet away from the property line in the rear. it is the one at the front. >> from the process standpoint, if a set of plans is submitted and then they are revised somewhat substantially, does that continue to exist under the same permit? >> yeah, it would be-this like an addendum or amendment, but not a revision to that set, because it hadn't been issued yet, it is just a correction as it were. >> and then if the period for appeals passed on the permit that is revised, there is no second bite at the apple for

appeal even though there may have been a substantial change to the plans? >> no, because we were not aware there was agreement between the two parties. in this situation the fire escape does meet the code requirements, so it would not have been-needed notification to anybody. >> understood. at all times, the building department looked and said these plans are fine? >> yeah. it met code. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner swig. >> for the benefit of the appellate and the benefit of the public. so, the situation here is that it was a adu which didn't add to the size of the building, strictly internally. nothing really happened externally to impact the neighborhood, other then-period. secondarily, a fire escape was

added. i'm sure that that was the direction of the fire department. >> correct >> i guidance from the fire department so it is a safety security issue and to get this job done this is the only way that it could be done, and so, that's a tough luck to the neighbor. >> unfortunately. >> so, just again for the benefit of the appellate and the benefit of anybody who is interested for the record, in a case like this where there is no notice necessary because the building is not having an addition, and also the fire department would overrule anything because it is a safety security issue, how does a neighbor find out other then as what counsel said, they should have known because there was knocking on the pavement and a

lot of disruption and the guy next door neighbor should have asked then. other then that, how does a neighbor find out all this stuff is going on and, especially average san franciscans has no idea about construction, how does a neighbor get into the mix to be able to see their rights are being protected? >> they would have had an agreement in place between the two parties that had the designer notify the next door neighbor there is a change. now the fire escape is closer to the property and explain why, but there is no trigger mechanism for something like this. it is fire, life safety issue. the fire department drives it more then anybody else. i'm not sure if there is any- >> it is up to one neighbor to walk over to the other neighbor and say, hey, we are about to

start on a major construction issue item here, we are not expanding the building, it is all done internally, but there will be disruption and by the way, the fire department is required that we put these fire escapes here. it isn't our choice necessarily, it is the direction of the fire department for safety and security code. that is really- >> there might be a legal agreement they can privately reached saying you will let me review this before it goes forward, but as far as the building department is concerned there is nothing that triggers that. >> i wanted that for the record and information of the neighbor. i know the neighbor isn't going to be happy about that, but that is just important to be transparent and have you testify. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on these items? any public comment on these items from somebody on zoom? please raise your hand.

i don't see, so commissioners the two items are submitted. >> commissioners, why dont we start with comments on the other end here. >> these are always hard because it has to do with communication and with knowledge and assumption one neighbor will have knowledge about what the other neighbor is going to do. one neighbor sometimes has to provide information and forthcoming, not required by the law, but good manners, it doesn't happen. safety and security overrules what may be in one neighbor's point view common sense, but notice under any circumstance is not required. it is real ly up to one neighbor communicating to another that this is going to

happen and the or the neighbor aware what is happening next door and being proactive. but i don't see-i'm very sympathetic to the appellate, extremely sympathetic to the appellate, but in fact, nothing that was-this does not meet the bar. >> i too am deeply sympathetic to the petitioner and i'm slightly uncomfortable with a little bit of the process and the way things can change in a way that might prejudice to file a appeal that is subsequentially unable to. i am comforted somewhat by the fact that there are other remedies that exist that just are not ours, including report of-with respect to the permit for the trash enclosure to the extent there was any actual

agreement, civil action. unfortunately, given the rules under which we operate or fortunately depending on your opponent of view, i don't see this as being the bar of something that should come within our jurisdiction. >> i concur with fellow commissioners. i'm deeply sympathetic to the requester in this case and ultimately doesn't meet the standard that we need to grant this jurisdiction request, but i am also heartened as commissioner eppler said, that there are alternative complaint methods available to you and your family, mr. lall and hopefully that makes it worth it. yeah. i'll pass to commissioner trasvina. >> i concur with colleagues in terms of any procedural defect from the city. we haven't heard any.

the question about the fire escapes seem to be permissible, 18 inches away, and for the other matter, it sounds like mr. lall and mrs. datta may have a alternative remedy for a building violation, so i don't believe that it is appropriate for us to take back jurisdiction on this matter. >> i agree with my fellow commissioners. i share the sympathy for the petitioner and also hopeful that the other avenues to remedies will be fruitful for the petitioner. with that, do i have a motion from anybody?

>> i will do it. i move that we deny the jurisdictional request on the basis that the city did not cause the petitioner to not be able to file an appeal. >> and inadvertently cause. >> yes. >> thank you. we have a motion from commissioner eppler to deny the request, both of them on the basis the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requesters to be late in filing the appeal. on that motion, lopez, aye. trasvina, aye. lemberg, aye. swig, aye. motion carries 5-0 and requester denied. thank you. we are moving on to items 5a, 5b and 5c. these are rehearing request for 23-062, 64 and 65 upper great

highway between lincoln way and sloat boulevard and surrounding streets. the appellates for the appeal, sunset park side education action committee speak geoffrey moore and charles perkins request rehearing of appeal decided february 7, 2024. at that time upon motion by commissioner swig the board voted 3-1-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis the projingect conform foorequirement and objectives of the san francisco coastal program and with adoption of findsings 1-9. the permit holder is san francisco recreation and parks department. the permit disripgz approval of coastal zone permit pursuant to planning code section 330 to permit temporary restriction on automobile access to upper great highway for car free bike and pedestrian promenade weekends and holidays through december 25, 2025 as well as various traffic calming on

surrounding streets. permit number 2022-007-356. motion 21437 and as a prep liminary matter commissioner eppler did you have a opportunity to watch the video which took february 7, 2024? >> yes, i did. >> okay, thank you. we will start with the first requester. mr. evan rosen is representing. as a matter you wanted to pass out the presentation? okay. sorry, let's first address president lopez. what do you want to ask him to accept? >> this is response to public records request. [difficulty hearing speaker] >> okay. okay, so you will be showing the e-mails as part of the presentation?

we just need to ask president lopez if it is okay. he can hand out written copies to you? >> yeah, that's fine. >> okay. thank you. >> president lopez, i have another preliminary matter if i may. >> sure. >> question to the city attorney. on rehearing requests, what are the standards for the board to apply? >> [indiscernible] and prevent manifest injustice, the board may grant rehearing only upon showing new or different material facts or circumstances have arisen. where such facts or circumstances if known at the time could have a effected the outcome of the original

hearing. >> thank you. if i can follow up, as you know, section 9 of our rules provision e also states that this action shall not apply to any motion to rehear a case made by the board's own initiative. if i were to make a motion at the end of the presentation for the board to rehear the matter, would the same standards apply? >> based on the board's rules, section 9 provides that this section shall not apply to any motion to rehear a case made by the board's own initiative, so the extraordinary case standard would not apply. there would need to be notice

of the motion. if a board member brought a motion that was encompassed by the description of the agenda items the board were to hear tonight, that motion could be heard. if the motion were different inkind from what the parties rehearing request are seeking, the board would need to consider whether it would be appropriate to agendize such a motion at a future meeting. that would-i think that depends upon the contents of the motion. >> and without getting too far ahead of ourselves with that analysis apply to a amendment to the motion that is agendized? >> what is required is what this board will be discusing

and taking action on is meaningfully described to the public as part of a public meeting. so, i can't advice on that without knowing the motion. >> okay, i just want to let me colleagues know and the parties here to know that in my view as to reiterate the city attorney's advice, we have the extraordinary case and manifest injustice described in rule 9 and also in our rule is that those standards do not apply when the board on its own motion, so, i may be in a position to say that or seek granting the request based on matters beyond what is in the first part of the rule.

in which case, in short, there are more criteria to justify granting of the motion. >> okay. thank you. mr. rosen, are you ready to begin? >> computer, please. >> the standard of review for rehearing request extraordinary cases new or different material facts or circumstances that could effect the outcome. we have all of the above. there is new hardwood log seating revealed during rec and park presentation, the new estuary written report reviewaled in rebuttal not disclosed and posted to rec and park website. the extraordinary case of the depy city attorney driving towards a particular outcome and brand new facts from rec and park for public records request. the newly installed seating raising consistency issue jz shows rec and park ignored safety concerns.

the seating is absent from the application for a coastal zone permit and there is no separate application. the new seating is clearly part of this project because st. was the center piece of rec and park presentation to this board. the estuary institute reports closing the upper great highway lead to increased trampling of the dunes. this apparently suppressed written report titled, growing resilience was not disclosed by rec and park until the hearing and appellates would have no way to know of the existence. then there is the extraordinary case of deputy city attorney exceeding her scope and advocating for a particular outcome. if the board were to deny the appeal it could make that decision this evening. the lcp doesn't have broad environmental objectives, the list goes on. rec and park failed to apply for coastal zone permit for new seating and failed to notify

dpw. dpw raised safety concerns. we are talking about a bench in the midsal of the highway and the new log seating originated with friends of the great highway, not rec and park. upon learning about it the log seating on january 30, rachel gordon of dpw writes to rec and park, we do not support the placement of benches on roadway medians due to safety concerns and do not think this is the best location to add a bench. in this e-mail back on november 15, super intendsant of parks pleads to put the seating somewhere else to avoid the potential pitfalls of installing it in the highway median. response, no, we covered this 20 times. on december 12, a super visor pleads with eric anderson, the staff has run into safety issues. replies, phil directed we move forward and aware of the safety

concerns. back on november 14, ginsburg gives the order, i want to move forward with the first log bench placed thon median and we can talk about addic a few more. doesn't sound like a pilot which is what is claimed and the e-mail fail to raise the question of lpk consistency. thank you and speaker request e-mails be entered into the record. >> okay. thank you. >> be happy to answer any questions. >> i do not see questions at this time. thank you. we will now hear from mr. moore, the appellate for appeal number 23-064. welcome, you have three minutes. >> thank you. several new material facts point to the likelihood significant environmental issue require further review.

including one appelee absent. the applicant made the new verbal allegation [indiscernible] considered, but citizens requested public records of review and received nothing other then excuses. the word clover appears zero times in the application or the applicant new reply brief, zero. the math speaks for itself. where is the data? two, the apcbt made the allegation dune erosion was considered however the public never saw the dune report and the appellate brief is misleading about the publication of the report. there are also public records requests asking when exactly park and rec became aware of the report conclusion dune foliage is trampled and this is entity previous held under sunshine ordinance rules. three,ered cooing to the city attorney, doesn't have broad environmental objectives. really? shall we ask a state regulator

whether sf-lpc should ignore the coastal zone? when citizens make public records request, only receive back copies of a ceqa exemption box checked on a form it should give great concern. four, we learned retroactive permits for temporary development on the coastal zone are just regularly granted. it is apparently routine practice but folks are somehow unaware. the coastal act and lcp requires adverse impacts are reviewed. five, there is new development thin coastal zone apairptply with no permit. how did that happen? number six, i had no opportunity to rebut the testimony of the sfmta absent tonight. we heard from muni there are no 311 complaints about traffic congestion and zero is curious

number when a community member was beaten sensealize mptd muni is well aware of the complaint and when i submitted public records request, i got a new answer, we found one complaint. i also submitted the request to city administrator who is responsible for logging 311 calls. they identified total of 3 8 pages of complaints that several hundred complaints hidden from this board. what is going on here? did i think sfmta has done any analysis about carbon emission effect when it can't count the 311 calls. take a closer look and happy to answer questions about the ceqa and coastal act interaction as well. appreciate your time. >> okay. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time, so we'll hear from mr. perkins , the appellate for 23-065.

>> good evening. at the meeting last month the board multiple times oen the record pondered perhaps they should punt the matter to ccc. there was discussion about not having particular expertise and rightfully the board decided no, no, no, we should not advocate our responsibility and figure this out. the board then looked to the city attorney for guidance and said hey, can you help us with the law here? one response was, you just balance a whole bunch of factors and throw them in the mix and weigh them, but what we have here are factors that are great highway specific. that's where the analysis needs to start and in my opinion that's where it stops. at minimum, those factors are paramount and that was not conveyed to the board.

we have information from the city attorney that with all due respect, that environmental concerns are-lcp doesn't have broad environmental concerns. nothing could be further from the truth. the coastal act, it is the bread and butter is preservation of the environment, that is what it is all about, primarily. there was comment from the city attorney that the city was sort in a chicken and egg situation because there was an ordinance that said, start a pilot project, so what else could they do? well, what else they could do is open the highway, go get all the permitss they needed if they could get them and launch the pilot project. there was no requirement they launch the pilot project immediately pre-permit, so with all that, i don't know that- this is a new area of law for me and everyone and i don't

know that the board was fully informed on what was at stake and what the obigations were. secondly, during the course of the very long evening, many witnesses for the city went on and on after the appellates had no longer a chance to talk and all sorts of new things were coming out. this dune report was alluded to as, hey, there is a report in the works, it will cure all these concerns that we might have, so don't worry about it. well, we now get that report and it demonstrates exactly what the appellate said and it shows that this permit should not have been granted. that the dunes are being trampled. the appellates made comments like, the emergency response times, we worked that out with the fire department. this was raised in our brief

and there is no--park and rec- >> thank you, that is time. >> okay. anyway, happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. i see a question from commissioner swig. >> can you tell me if you have seen a report from a fire department or any other safety and security department within the city of san francisco related to response times as you raised in the initial appeal? >> i have not seen any report on emergency response times. i do know that i have seen a fire captain came out publicly a couple years ago and said, these entire slow street programs are delaying emergency response times by average of 7 seconds. as i said in my brief on appeal, that's the average. most emergency response times

dont involve a closed street at all, so if the average response time is delayed 7 seconds we got a lot of response times delayed, minutes, maybe 10th of minutes. >> you have seen no written report? >> right. >> proor con? >> right. >> that means to our view or anybody else's view, there really isn't a written document that supports your view or park and rec's view? >> other then the fact that in- >> yes or no? >> no. >> no written report has been issued one way or the other pro or con? yes, or no? >> i'm informed to believe it has based on park and rec testimony last time when they told you that they had been work ing with emergency responders on the very issue. but i have not seen a report.

i don't know for sure of any report. >> that is the answer i was looking for, yes or no. thank you very much. >> thank you, no further questions and you can be seated. we'll now hear from the planning department. and you have 9 minutes given you're respondsing to three requests. >> okay. thank you. good evening. corey teage zoning administrator for planning department. as you heard and discussed tonight already, the standard of review for a rehearing request at least one granted or requested from the public is -they are denied accept extraordinary cases and to prevent manifest injustice and only upon new material facktd facts or circumstances have arisen or known at the time could center effected the original hearing. it is the department position

the appellates have not met the bar for rehearing for this coastal permit for this great highway pilot project. no new facts were not submitted available or discussed during the original hearing nor a strong argument made a rehearing is necessary is needed to prevent manifest injustice. i'll go over several claims. they claim a log bench is shown added in the median during the original hearing, however that information was provided-came up at the hearing through the picture and so it was not necessarily a new fact. additionally, the coastal permit before the board did not include the instillation of a log bench as part of the scope of work. this is partly because such a feature is exempt required a coastal permit as a rec and park department structure that does not require a building permit. even if such bench did require a permit that is ground for a

separate coastal permit, or removal that bench, but not grounds to determine that the coastal permit before you was not consistent with the local coastal program, which we continue to contend is. the appellate also claim that the esware dune studies was mentioned during the original appeal hearing, and newer report or more final report has been issued in the meantime. however, the report was referenced in the rec and park department original brief and discussed by their staff during the original appeal hearing to the extent it could be at that time. additionally, commissioners quired about the study during the hearing and as such not a new fact or information. further, regardless of the timing of the study, the fact additional environmental studies and consideration beyond ceqa, the fact that is not required for the coastal

permit was thoroughly discussed during the original appeal hearing and any updated information from the study isn't relevant to the coastal permit and not meet the threshold for the new hearing because the information wasn't required to be considered as part of sth coastal permit review. the the appellate claim staff inflated planning code language with 1986 coastal program and this is not correct. planning staff explained why there is different language in the 86 language and the current code, but also raised that to explain why that was not relevant or impactful for the determination that the coastal permit before you was consistent with the local coastal program. the appellate also claim the deputy city attorney advocated for specific outcome. we obviously don't speak for the depy city attorney, but the

department observation the depy city attorney did not advocate for a specific outcome for the board. they responded to questions and provided factual clarifying comments and specifically stated on the record that they were not advocating for any specific position or outcome. the appellates claim that the california coastal act includes environmental findings and that is true. it does include findings and they were findings that were adopted as part of the original adoption of the state law itself. however, those were simply fiendings for adopting the state law, they do not impose any specific environmental analysis requirements for this coastal permit or other coastal permits. the city local coastal program is intended and required to implement the california coastal act at the local level and it was adopted by the california coastal commission and it does not include any specific requirement for

environmental review. and again, the issues around environmental review were discussed at the original hearing including the fact the western shoreline area plan does not include any objective any policies or objectives specifically related to the environment, especially not around the great highway or the dunes and that the planning code and the western shoreline area plan do not include additional required environmental analysis beyond ceqa and that all the required ceqa for this project had been obtained. so, to conclude, i want to say that i very much disagree with how the appellates have described prior conversations, the contents of the western shoreline area plan, the provisions of state law here today.

i'm happy to answer questions related to any that. i would recommend that any statements from the appellates of fact without any pressing on where those facts are derived from or sourced from are important. again, there is a high bar for rehearing request. the issues that were raised in the rehearing request did not rise to the level of granting it. many issues were covered during the original hearing. on the issue of the records requests, which of course happened after the hearing, i have not received a copy of what was included in there and what was referenced by the first appellate was not planning department information, but rec park-i don't know any specific details that conversation between rec park and dpw regarding the placement of the log bench in

the median, but i would just raise the fact again that the area where the great highway is rec park jurisdiction and not dpw jurisdiction. if it was public right on a different street it is dpw jurisdiction but in the case of the great highway that is not regulated by public works code or department of public works. so again, just to summarize, don't feel like the issues and points raised by the appellates here rise to the level of justifying a rehearing request, and the department respectfully request the board denies that rehearing request, but i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner trasvina has a question. >> thank you for your testimony. so, the requesters are focused

on three new material facts and one extraordinary case argument. the second new material fact issue is the sf estuary report. are you able to comment on that report? >> i am not able to comment on that report. >> i won't get into it. that is reason why park and rec should be here and i think that's a problem. one thing i think you can-we look to you as a expert on is the planning code, and 330.5.2 talks about the findings and part of it as you know better then i, a coastal zone permit approved only upon findings of fact establishing the project conforms to requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program. was that done? >> yes. the motion adopted by the planning commission included both fiendings that the project was consistent with the planning code, which is the

implementation plan component of our lcp and adopted specific findings that it was consistent with the western shoreline area plan, which is the land use plan element of our lcp. >> so that's--what you are describing to me is globally complies with the planning code, and sub-globally, it consist ent with the western shoreline program. is there anything that says that it conform s to requirements and objectives of local coastal program? >> i can check and see if it is specifically states that it meets all the requirements or consistent with the local coastal program. the point i'm making, the coastal program consist of two different things that are different, different controls and objectives one being the implementation plan, the planning code and the western

shoreline plan. in the planning code [indiscernible] the motion-because they are two separate things, the motion addresses each component of the lcp separately and says consistent with the planning code, which is part 1 of the lcp and consistent with the western shoreline area plan, which is part 2 of the lcp. i have to look to see if it says for clarifying this represents the totality of the lcp. >> i was looking for it and the reason i'm asking now is because i couldn't find it. on the issue of the planning code, the other component of had local coastal program, the neighborhood business program, that one, is that reflected in the record of the findings? >> can you repeat that? were you asking about a separate part of the local coastal program? >> yes. >> which part?

>> the neighborhood business provision that the requesters described. >> i may not be completely familiar with that, >> the neighborhood commercial component. >> i think what they are referencing is that the last time the lcp was amended and adopted by the california coastal commission was when the city adopted our neighborhood commercial controls. and that was our-amending our planning code. the provisions of the neighborhood commercial district don't at all apply to the great highway-to this program because it is located within the p district, the public zoning district. >> so, their contention that closing the great highway has a impact on businesses that are nearby access to it, travel

time, et cetera, that is irrelevant for this purpose? or there are findings somewhere to say that these issues don't relate to this? >> there is nothing in the planning code or western shoreline area plan specifically about impacts on nearby businesses due to activity within the western shoreline area plan. there isn't a direct connection i'm aware of. >> we shouldn't be expected the city to say that-we shouldn't look for something that says that closing the great highway has a good or bad impact on neighborhood commercial? it isn't going to be there? >> in terms of something that level of what impact will it have on businesses sounds like a economic impact study.

i'm not aware of economic impact study required. definite not for the pilot. for the permanent, i'm not aware either. for permanent closure, there would be more substantial environmental review then what was for the pilot and the environmental review includes a number of things, including transportation analysis, which may have information regarding transportation impacts in the area, including to businesses. >> similarly, the argument that nobody talked about the-as the supervisor called it, permanent bench or someone called permanent bench, that isn't relevant to the great highway closure? >> that wasn't a component of the permit or even considered, but separate wlae that type of feature is exempt from a coastal permit because there is specific provision for rec park open space structures that

don't require a buildling permit, and that feature would not require a building permit. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> so, with regard--so, with regard to the estuary plan, you say you haven't read it? >> i'm familiar with it. i have not read it in detail, so i'm definitely not a subject matter expert on the content that plan, that study. >> we find ourselves in a condonedrum here, because there is couple things going on. it is interesting. always interesting, but sometimes more then others. first of all, to grant a rehearing request there is the

requirement that there is new information available to us that wasn't fully disclosed to us prior. okay. so, in passing, not in the documents that were presented to us for review prior to the hearing, there was a mention of the estuary plan in passing, but the plan wasn't presented to us for review. and nor it seems was present ed to you prior to the hearing for your review. and-but it was presented, therefore not new information but done in passing, not in depth. and so, that puts us in a awkward position, it isn't new information because it was mentioned but it is new information because we really didn't get to see it.

if you would have-this is tough question to ask, but you did a great job and i commented on that. you did a great job and certainly convincing me, and i did say this in my testimony during the hearing, in convincing me that the requirements were satisfied, and furthermore, that if we were to have found for the appellate that we could not have-and found that the planning commission and making their-and supporting their-the element supporting their findings, or that they presented findings that supported their positions, that in fact we were at our-we would

not have been able to provide findings in support of finding for the appellate, which we would have legally would have had to present findings in support of if we would have found for the appellate and therefore that was the basis of my motion that we couldn't have come up with findings, so therefore, the motion was presented and passed. okay. now, we have this estuary plan, which was not presented in advance of our hearing. was not presented to yourself in advance to the hearing for review, and you still to this day just testified you haven't reviewed it. is there a possibility or if you would have reviewed it, might it-hard to answer i know, but might there have been

something in that estuary plan that would have changed your view and your presentation which influenced your's truly into your supporting your position? >> happy to answer that. quickly, i realize i failed to say the first thing i wanted to say tonight which is, i apologize not submitting a brief. a brief that i worked hard on and had still trying to determine how and why it was not submitted, but ultimately it was not submitted and i wanted to apologize for that, because i did not want you to think i purposefully did not support the brief. you dont have my thoughts in writing so can't do anything but apologize for that and move on. definitely not intentional. the short answer is no from planning department perspective and this is what we talked about a lot. went through a lot at the last

hearing. one point of clarification, the rec park's brief for the original hearing did reference the estuary institute's study that was ongoing at the time, and how they had engaged with that and they talked about it during the hearing. obiously, what is released not wasn't released at the time so it couldn't speak to that specific information, but they engaged in that information. they acknowledged there was no secret there. the point i was making was that, well it is completely understandable that on the coastline everyone is concerned about environmental protection, nobody want s to do things that are degrading to the environment. for this specific coastal permit, it simply did not require a high level of environmental analysis in large measure because it is a time limited pilot, and separate

from that, there are no specific objectives or policies in the western shoreline area plan, which is the land use plan component of our lcp that are very specific about environmental outcomes and protections that would have required or mandated or necessitated any additional environmental review. i think what we were trying to say from the planning department perspective and don't want to speak for rec park, but while the information in the study and the report is obiously good information, want to be aware of it and the departments want to be good stewards to the environment, the coastal permit was not hinging on that report or information in that report or any other environmental analysis that did not occur. and so that is why my position in the brief not submitted, but what i gave tonight was that,

that is not entirely relevant to whether or not-to the single question which is, is the coastal permit consistent with our local coastal program. that is the only question-the only findings that were made by the planning commission and ultimately by there board for the coastal permit. is it consistent with those things and we found it was consistent and that this estuary institute report, good information and obiously available information that could be used for any stakeholders or agencies that work in that area, it was not a necessary piece of information or study for the issuance of the coastal permit. >> so, it would be your view that the findings of the planning commission would not have changed had this estuary report been available to them

and had this estuary report been available to you, not as conjecture or it is coming, that your testimony would have been the same, the findings of the planning commission would hold? good information. thankz very much for that, but it would not overrule or otherwise change the findings of the planning commission? >> i can't speak for the planning commission what actions they would have taken with certain information. i do believe that materials submitted to the planning commission and public comment referenced the ongoing study. they could have continued it or asked more questions. they had the opportunity to dive deeper into just the entire issue of environmental analysis, which they did not do at the time. >> should i or members of the this panel be bothered by the

fact that this is new information because it wasn't done? it was referenced and want done and not submitted, therefore not published or submitted to us, should we bothered by us in that it is new information for our consideration? and secondarily, even if we-you haven't read it, so this is a problem, but do you think there might have been any information in that report which would have allowed us to present findings in support of the appellate, which would have been one of the requirements for us in supporting an appeal and given that it wasn't available to us at that time as a finished

document? obiously we couldn't present a findings related to that report in support of the appeal. >> i think there is two aspects to that. one, the bar here in terms where there are facts, if it was known at the time, i think there is distinction to be made about facts that existed at that time and facts that have not existed since the hearing, because there is a different standards. there are a lot of things that have happened. -a lot of new facts that exist in the world post-hearing date that could not have been considered at the time because they didn't exist and that is what we are talking about here. at it time the level of information provided about the study ongoing was provided and thoroughly discussed and

considered, but the bigger point to what you were saying is, going back to what i said to the original question, would anything in the report change whether or not the permit is consistent with our local coastal program and again, i have not read the detail ozf s of the report. i'm sure there is language about potential impacts this way and that way and ways we need to do more or different things differently to protect the dunes et cetera, but that would need to be linked to a specific planning code requirement, or policy or objective of the western shoreline area plan to then make that connection that because that information in the report, therefore, this coastal permit is not consistent with some specific objective or policy of the lcp. i'm not aware how that argument would be made.

>> i'm going to ask a question to you, there is also-it is valid for the city attorney. again, this report was not-we still wouldn't be able to put forth-just making a statement first and ask a question. at this moment, based on your testimony, based on the previous hearing, i would not and don't know about the other commissioners, would not be able-i still stand in the position, i would not be able to create findings as required by law to support the appellate. okay. however, i don't know because i

haven't been advised by planning, because planning-i have great respect for your view. you haven't-planning has not reviewed this report and therefore cannot say whether there are findings for us and in fact, if we were hearing something about a deck, simple as a deck, and suddenly-and it was referenced in testimony during the original hearing that there may be other information out there, but we are not really clear on that subject, which is like this, and then suddenly and we ruled and suddenly the report came back in a nice bound book and it did have new information, would that not be-this is where

the city attorney comes in too with a opinion, is that not new information we should consider in a rehearing request, because in fact when we heard an illusion to it, it wasn't published, codified and blessed, but post hearing, it is now new information. so, i need a reading on that from yourself, why shouldn't it be new information that we shouldn't consider because it wasn't ready when the hearing happened, and the same thing for the city attorney, why shouldn't this be considered, this document be considered new information as we might get in any other typical rehearing request. with that, i still can't find findings, but this is is a question. >> sure, i'll let deputy city

attorney answer their question on the specific terms of the rules for the board. i would say that the distinction here is that, the standard is are there new facts or circumstances if known at the time that could have effected the outcome of the original hearing. it isn't just there is new facts because there is always going to be new facts. the fundamental point i have been making is that, even if this report had some language about potential additional environmental impacts, that has to be tied to a specific component of the lcp that it conflicted with, to then be able to put two and two together and say because of the potential impact from this report and this objective or policy that says, there shall not be those impacts to just be

very broad, therefore, the permit isn't consistent. >> hence the writing of the findings? >> right. i'm not familiar with details of what is in that study, which again was not a study from the city or required study because of anything related to this permit, even though i'm not familiar with those details, to me because i'm not familiar with any such policy or objective in the western shoreline area plan, i don't know where anything from the study could be tied directly to the lcp to be determined that the permit was not consistent with the lcp. and honesty, i think even though the report is out now, i think that conversation was had at the-the concept we are talking about now was very much flushed out at the last hearing. the difference is the report is out now, but the principal of

the information the study may provide was discused add the last hearing. >> can you address the whether this should be considered new and important information that was not fully disclosed in the previous hear ing and therefore present a new--something for us to consider and have a rehearing is the bottom line. >> i want to tie this very closely to what the standard is for rehearing, because the standard for rehearing is high because of this principal of finality and efficiency, right? >> exactly what i'm asking. thank you very much. >> so, what the standard requires is there has to be a showing of new or different material facts or circumstances. that if known could have effected the outcome of the original hearing. the idea is they need to have arisen after the hearing, and that is incompassed by the

sub-sections of this rule, which refer to the written request for rehearing having to kraib the nature of the new facts or circumstances, the witnesses or documents to be produced, and why the evidence was not produced at the original hearing. so, here we have appellates come forward with this report. the report is dated december 2023. according to rec and park brief it has been available since december 15, 2023. it is information that appellates are asserting is supportive of their case. planning has asserted i think that it doesn't bear on their view of the circumstances, so under the rule, appellates have to describe, they have to demonstrate why the evidence was not produced at the original hearing. their brief was submitted late

jan, the report was available 2023 so the board should consider that fact. i don't think the question is whether planning should have brought thris forth or rec and park, they made that argument, but the onus is on the party who brings forth the new evidence to justify why that wasn't put forth at the original hearing. >> and we heard that argument before. we had cases where reports have been available and the appellate just didn't bring it forth and exactly as you are describing, and we had rehearing requests where it has been noted that hey guys, this was-i'll use your paraenthetical, or as a example, this report was done in december, you presenting your case in january and now you are coming back and using

it as new and important information and we have dismissed that notion in the past. i'm just supporting what you're saying on that account. okay. thank you. >> thank you. we are now going to public comment. anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment? you have three minutes and we already have speaker card for you i believe. >> okay. there seems to be a real disconnect right now, and i can see that of course rec and park isn't here and we have one representative from planning, and mr. teage has a lot of credibility with this board from what i have seen and rightfully so, but i think he

is the sacrificial lamb here. he is not a expert in the local coastal program. it is totally different from the general plan today. he may be a expert in the general plan, but that's not the plan in the local coastal program. so, he's got a disconnect there, and there is other elements he's not even looking at. so, i understand he's very credible, but he's not a coastal commission act person and there planning. he's not designated as that. so, if you dig down into what the local coastal program is, you will find that this is not compliant with the local coastal program. so, the new information that

was brought forth, the bench under the local lcp would require a permit. that's why he is saying it is not because he's not the expert in that area. so, we got is we got a planning department that has not had an expert in the coastal commission for several years. i believe the gentleman that was in that position retired or left several years ago, and there is nobody to understand this. the reason why this is important, there is a lot of coastal issues coming to you guys, because the planning department is ignoring the coastal laws, and rec and park in this case have already ignored the coastal laws. they just don't even go and even look what the lcp when they are issuing or not issuing

permits and that's the disconnect here. so, i would hope that you would be able to send a message to the planning and send a message to rec and park, don't break down this crown jewel of california law, which is a coastal laws to allow us to have access for all californians and all people, not just for whatever pet projects or for the developers that are coming. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. zach lipten, volunteer of friends of great highway park asking to deny the request for rehearing. there is no new material information and appellates have not identified manifest injustice. the bench is temporary bench carved from a storm damaged tree not attached to the ground in any way. a single temporary log bench doesn't change the pilot status

of the project, it could be easily reloteed elsewhere at the conclusion of the piletd. most importantly, the placement of benches as pointed out is covered by planning code section 330.3i which states no coastal zone permit is required for the bench so there is no material fact there. as to the estuary report, it isn't a new material fact because it was posted online december 2023, months before the original hearing and appellates had notice of the report months ago. the project sponsor brief dated oct27 and include said in your packet states describes the report as forthcoming. that was part of the planning commission pack atwise well. failure to exercise due diligence to produce the new facts and circumstances at the previous hearing shall be deemed grounds for denial of the request. appellates had the burden to download the report if they wanted to produce it last months. the report is explits it isn't

taking continue on the pilot project, and appellates cite no new information from the report as appellates already discussed dune impact at length in the presentations, so cdsant have had impact oen the outcome. the local coastal program has not changed to the appeal so existence can't be new material fact. the last amendment to the certified program occurred 6 years ago, so nothing new there. appellates claim the relevant sections of the planning code changed, but they don't identify these sections what the changes are or indicate how those changes are relevant. the only section they cite has no material changes. there is it no new material fact about the text of the lcp. [indiscernible] appellate attack the deputy city attorney integrity because she was so careful thon record last months to say she wasn't offering

opinion on thet paer at hand. the daepy city attorney answering question isn't a manifest injustice. i want to read--this project isn't something anyone entered into arbitrarily. this is here because the board passed legislation and mayor signed legislation directing this pilot including the dates it should take place, the hours it should take place and a coastal zone permit should be sought, so i ask that the board differ to the expertise of our erected officials and the california coastal commission where i'm sure the matter will be heard. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else in the room who want to comment? >> there is a cell phone left here. i think somebody in the room. >> that is what keeps going off? >> joseph. you keep calling it? no. >> that is unfortunate for

somebody. i don't see public comment and move to zoom and we have a panelist who or a member of the public who wants to show video, john elliot. >> yes, hello. >> welcome, you have three minutes and tell us when you are ready? >> i'm ready. >> okay. >> so, this pilot is fundamentally consistent with the local coastal program and coastal act. objective 2 of the local coastal program. are design the great highway to enhance scenic quality and recreational use. from the coastal act, maximize public access to and long the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. the other commenter just a few commenters ago said, what the coastal act is about is access for all californians for all people. >> we don'ts see the video. >> i'm not showing it yet.

i'm setting it up. about to show it to you. so, i want to show you what access looks like and i want to show you access at the bench, which you don't need a permit to the bench. 330.3i. here i show a video of the bench and the video toggles between when the great highway is open to people on the weekend and you see that access and then you see the access that happens at the exact same time during the week. it goes back and forth between the two things. i'm sharing my screen and going to this and i think this is going to be it. can you see that? >> yes. >> alright. check it out, here it goes. this is during the weekend. look at the access. this is not a picture, this is

video. that's what is happening. that is a video. okay, here is more access. so, we haven't seen any access at all during the week yet when the road is open to cars. we are about to see it though. one, two, three, four. here's again what this access looks like. now you see like six cars here in a minute. here is a little--access. and then the video continues here. look. this is video. this is video. and that's the end of the video. so, we are talking about access. access for all californians for all people. the last time i tried to appeal to you guys by like giving you the legal argument, i'm not a

legal person but amazing i spend my might watching the meeting but that is what i'm doing because i care so much about the access. this is about coastal act and access for all californians. thank you for your time. >> thank you. we'll now hear from call in user number 1. you may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. there is no name. someone who called in. blocked their number. yes, go ahead, i see you unmuted yourself. >> hello. good evening. my name is judy. i live across the street from the great highway. i lived here 45 years and watched what has been going on since the closure. i strongly urge the commissioners to please support the appellate's request for rehearing. i have seen with my own eyes the erosion of the dunes by the foot traffic and the wildlife

sanctuary trampled and defiled. i see rec and park is willing to put me and my neighbors in harms way from willingness to evect structures inviting people to sit down less then 2 feet from traffic passing by in both directions when the highway is open. if a truck jumps the curb, a disaster could occur. maybe it didn't require a high level of environmental studies and protection, but morally and for the safety of the wildlife and community, it should not be exempt that you don't do a environmental study before you close 4 lanes of traffic and send it into the neighborhood. the exemption is discretionary and that shows that the planning department and rec and park really do not care anytime the welfare of the people and the wildlife. we didn't have the opportunity to dive deeper into this study

because it was just completed and we just got it. so, i strongly urge you to support the appellates and i thank you for your time for listening to my opinion. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the caller who is identified at samsung. please go ahead. you can speak now. we can come back to you. the caller who phone number, 9221, please go ahead. >> yes. this is patricia eric. i am the leader of concerned residents of the sunset, 17 0 people, i represent them, and i live on the lower great highway, and i am asking the board to please grant this request for a rehearing. this estuary report needs to be

explored. mr. teage from planning said he was not aware what was in it. the city attorney said for-dismissed it, planning doesn't think it is important. that isn't really true and not what he said. i think that this area out here is pristine beautiful, it needs to have all of the input and all of the protections that we can possibly allow before we go ahead and let park and rec turn it into a carnival. it will be a carnival and it will destroy the beauty of this area now. another thing, this is a class thing. the people that want this

highway closed are higher income bike riders. they are the ones pushing for this. working people need this highway to get back and forth, patients to the vet hospital. it's unfair that this is just rammed through without any environmental consideration for 4 years people destroying the dunes, the vegetation and the dunes are destroyed and nobody seems to care. they just want to have their bicycle rake track. we need to stop and reconsider and give everybody a voice instead of just park and rec, jeff tumlin, phil ginsberg,

ramming this through on the people who live out here and who are going to have to put up with thousands of cars in front of our houses once they get this closed. so, please, do something here that we can slow this down so that the environment has a chance. thank you. >> thank you. we are going to try samsung sm again. please go ahead. >> hi. like i listened to you and i live 4 blocks from the beach, and the bicycle riders have destroyed this neighborhood. i don't even go near that part of the city anymore. i cannot even drive anywhere. 19th avenue, sunset boulevard and sloat boulevard are jammed and lincoln are jammed with cars because of this. i can no longer ride a bisical or a scooter because i have

arthritis and bad 92 knee and taking away the road for the privileged bicycle riders is outrageous. the whole neighborhood is suffering and those speed bumps, they hurt people with arthritis and disability. the entitled bicycle coalition is funded by the city, they don't have to work, they get plenty money so all they do is open their mouths and destroy the city for everyone else. i have to remember what streets are slow streets, what streets have speed bumps. it is all because bicycle riders. the sand dunes are being destroyed. i have seen parents encourage their kids to slide down it the sand dunes. i have seen parents let their kids throw sand on the great highway. it is more dangerous to cross the great highway for me with my dog with bicycle riders that come inches away then it is with cars that give me enough space to cross the great

highway. there is new information. that report was not shown. the absence of park and rec shows a attitude they got about destroying golden gate park and the great highway. golden gate park is now off limits to a great deal of the population of san francisco because of the bicycle riders. thousands parks spaces are taken away. stores in the haight are closing. there are vacancy along irving street. the more roe you restrict traffic the more businesses in the city will be gone. this is a fact. you cant lie about it. it doesn't take a genius to see how the sand dunes are destroyed. they are trampled on. the kids-it is chaos. there are bike riders going 35, 40 miles an hour on their

electric bikes, kids on the teeter-totters and everybody goes in every direction and if i had a grantkid i would not let them near it is too dangerous for small children with people speeding by and it needs rehearing because it is environmentally a disaster and that bench-wait till someone gets killed because of the bench. only a moron would seem the bench is safe with traffic a foot or two away. >> thank you. we will hear from tony villa. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. tony villa. okay. we can come back to you. peter piroli, please go ahead.

>> hi. i want to discuss a-i made a very specific public records request following last hearing in which i requested documentation on carbon emissions because the application that was submitted supposedly suggested that there will be reduction in carbon emissions due to the great highway project pilot and when i made that public records request i was told there is no such document. there was a ceqa exemption and did ants have to create a finding so the application had a finding there is reduction in carbon emissions and yet there is no documentation that. the reason why i'm particularly interested in this is because in separate sunshine requests,

we've found that traffic increases on the lower great highway because the highway upper great highway is closed, so when we compare friday afternoon traffic rates compared to afternoon traffic rates during the rest of the work week we find there is a major increase in traffic on lower great highway and so one would spbt carbon emissions close to people's homes and particulate matter are increasing because of all this traffic. and for every person that you see walking on that great highway when it is closed, there is additional surplus of three cars that drive on the lower great highway. so, there seems to have been a claim that this project somehow reduces pollution from cars, and yet the obvious indicator

that traffic st. increasing in our neighborhood is right there for everyone to see and this claim that somehow they reduce carbon emissions was in their application and yet there doesn't seem to be any documentation or study to that effect. and that's it. >> okay, thank you. we'll try tony villa again. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. okay. we'll come back to you. martin munoz, please go ahead. >> hi. thanks for taking public comment. i like to speak against this appeal. of course, i do want to remind the board of appeals that there is no new substantive information. that is the most important and material fact here. that is what we are talking about, but i feel i'm living in

the twilight zone hearing the commentss because you have people asking for you guys to help them open a piece of rpd property to more cars over the weekend versus active transportation for environmental reasons. knowing full well that vehicles have exhaust, particulate matter, micro plastics, noise, let alone actual exhaust and that is let out on the dunes during the week when it is open to cars. and we want this 24/7? that is completely insane. these are not environmentalists, these are people who do not see a world where one part of the city is car free where everywhere else in the city is full of cars to the point where people dont feel safe biking and this is one of the few places in the city where kids from four--feel

comfortable biking, walking without the fear of being run over. besides all that, this has gone through so much public testimony from the debates during covid to the debates at rpd or at the mta board to debates at planning, to debate ast the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor and voted on and again the appellates were absolutely destroyed at the ballot box. prop i was rejected by voters by 65 percent and i'll remind you, just a few days ago, la had a similar proposition to make it easier and faster to build safe biking and walking in their city. [indiscernible] and that proposition measure hla passed

by more then 65 percent in la of all cities. so, again, this is a desperate attempt by a minority of people who cannot see a future where our city has some places where it is safe to bike and walk and get around and they are grasping at straws. there is no new information and you should reject the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. tony villa. >> yeah, technical problem. for one thing, i live at the great highway over furt 40 years. the place is complete mess. there are [audio cut out] >> we lost you. mr. villa? maybe you can try calling in on the phone number. >> what happened to maui. a huge fire.

how many know the great highway is a major escape route in san francisco in case there is a emergency? how are we going to get out of here if the western side of the city is on fire like the marina previously was, how are we going to get out of here? to go forth you go across the golden gate bridge, east the bay bridge, one of the only ways to get out is south and the great highway there is no trees but you go inland, there is lots of roofs with tar and gravel that will be on fire just in lahaina. all the newbes want to work from home, they want the good life and have a park here which the developers promote along with senator wiener because they want big ocean views. so, it is a whole scam. even more the sunshine request

supervisor ginsberg conspiring to close for goods. there is texting between this. the safety on a fire department, how do we get out with a major catastrophe so i ask the board of appeals [indiscernible] a major fire did happen here and it is well known in the outer sunset we don't have enough water to put out a major fire out here. that's been going on for years. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear caller phone number 0202, please go ahead. 0202. you need to unmute yourself. >> thank you very much for that. i should be unmuted now. fyi, there are 15

[indiscernible] between sunset and great highway. there are plenty other aumgzs options for a emergency. thank you for listening to what we said last time. my name is lisa church, a d3 resident but i spend a lot of time out on the great-way because my family lives a block off there. something [indiscernible] shouldn't matter, the space belongs to all the city. i live in a neighborhood where people come from all over the city and beyond to enjoy the area. it belongs to everybody. i welcome you all to my corner. somebody mentioned previously that the space would become a carnival and lose the beauty if we go through with this, which we are already in the pilot process. i have no [indiscernible] then a carnival, so i welcome that carnival sld it come. again, i dont think this hearing was meant to express or thoughts on the great highway,

but i will briefly. i just want to say i'm here to express my objection to rehearing on the issue. i agree with all the previous callers comments objecting to this so not going to repeat them. i would add a couple things. first of all, the number of times that any issue in san francisco has to be relitigated is exhausting. it is embarrassing. this is a pilot. everything is already going to be relitigated. it is approve bide d by the board, approved here. the voters have all weighed in on this. there are so many-every issue in san francisco over and over and over again. additionally, for this project specifically, or anywhere else in san francisco, we need more benches. i'm a older person, i don't drive, i have limited mobility. i work full time. i deent don't ride a bing san francisco. it is obsurd to refer to

projects as rich non working people. i know many advocates that support this. they contribute extensive person time beyond work and family and are trying to make the city a better place. the fact-i will not elaborate there. i personally love the bench and have coffee or walk slowly and just see people on bikes walking and running, kids with strollers. it is joyful. i love the closed vehicles great highway because it is level space to walk without cars darting in and out. more seating would be fantastic. thank you for listening to me and everyone else tonight. >> thank you. richard rossman, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> i live in outer richmond and

at the last hearing the representative from mta only talked about traffic going east and west. she did not talk about the traffic going north and south and i suggest at the last meeting that you all visited the chain of lakes on friday afternoon around 3:30 in jfk. people who care about the environment all those cars are parking lots in the chain of lakes in golden gate park, so i don't know what they are talking about in saving the environment when all these cars in both directions are back to back on chain of lakes. sometimes the cars are backed up to fulton street, and we asked mta to improve the 18 bus lane. maybe you might want to ask why mta won't improve the 18 bus

line. 19th avenue is a disaster zone. cars-traffic is more heavy on sunset boulevard. a lot of times i drive across the on 43rd or lower great highway, especially on friday afternoons. you don't have to take the long way around, so i think the man from planning is saying that they improved the traffic flow, well they didn't improve the traffic flow and they should look at the 43rd or 41st and lincoln they are supposed to put a traffic light there and didn't do it. they need to put other signs in there. you know, the mta wants to do it, then they need to improve the traffic and they need to improve the 18 bus line.

that's why there should be a rehearing to ask mta about the north/south traffic and ask the man from the planning department what's the effect on north/south traffic whether the great highway is closed, especially on friday afternoon and thank you for your time and for your service you give to the city. it is much appreciated. even though i always-not always agree with you, but thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from jen d, please go ahead. >> i have been a resident on [indiscernible] since 197 and i know this is about the legality, but i'm kind of in shock that the man from the planning department hasn't read the report and said it wouldn't effect the answer. i could have provided video and

pictures as well because that was a misrepresentation the video you saw because i bumper to bumper traffic from one end of my block to the other starting friday afternoon all weekend. you can't cross lincoln to go to the park safely where streets are closed and people can play where there is trees and grass, not asphalt. the dunes are being destroyed and i cannot believe rec and park whatever they are called now and the city are doing whatever they want. they haven't talked to the community, people are not informed and people are not liking it. i have to breathe in exhaust people are idling for hours. i can't open my window due to asthma and if i do besides the exhaust i get everybody's music as they go by and my dog starts barking and i have a noise complaint. they want to worry about the environment and exhaust,opethen highway. it has been a highway how many

years and worked just fine? there is plenty places for the bikes to go. sorry, but thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hear from rl. please go ahead. >> thank you. i'm unmuted. yes, i have been a very long time generational residents [indiscernible] this is-everything i mimic everyone says for the appellate, this should be revisited. this is a minority not minority who do not want great highway to be closed but minority for the ones who want it to be closed all the time. this is a environmental nightmare. we do need to have better access across town, because of the way the city is built. it is ridiculous to put a bench in a place in the median which

i'm not certain that is a legal or not, but many people said, wait till somebody hits that and their car is crunches or somebody is killed . there are plenty benches on the pathway to a unobscureed view to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee or what not. there is also the path before they started the pilot program i used to ride much much more all over town. i had no problem riding on the side of the road with the cars. i had no problem riding on the path or other ways to ride throughout the city. we do not need to close the 24/7 for people who claim to call-it was great highway for 95 years not parkway. it isn't deally deemed so and shouldn't be deemed so unless someday they make a ridiculous stance to say it should be closed but should not be closed

soime i'm for all the appellates. thank you. >> thank you. lucas lux a resident of the sunset. there are a lot of opinions on the great highway. you guys dont have to resolve that tonight. jour job is simpler, just deciding whether to grant rehearing request. i urge you to deny the request for three reasons. instillation of benchicize rec park activity explicitly exempt. it is by definition not relevant to decision. second, the estuary study releasted in public last year. the paement had amp lt opportunity to include content in the appeal. the failure does not make new information. the report was by definition not new information to them. three, the appellate selectively quote the deputy

city attorney [indiscernible] reminding the commissioners she was not offering a continue. the high standard of the board rules set for rehearing are not met and we urge you to find accordingly by denying the request. that thank you so much. >> everyone we need to take a 5 minute break. thank you for your patience. [5 minutes recess] >> welcome back to the march 13, 2024 meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we are on items 5a, b and c. we are at the public comment portion and we will resume with cyrus hall, please go ahead. >> yes. good evening commissioners.

sunset resident, regular musing of the great highway. i'll keep it short. there is no new material information presented this evening and appellates not identified any manifest injustice. the estuary report isn't a new fact. it was published online 2023. the appellates were made aware for the upcoming existence. fot hidden in any way. they could have brought it to the the original hearing. second, the bench is not a new material fact.:it is a very small material fact in compare today the entire size of the great highway and also allowed by city code. so, that's it. i ask you to not grant the rehearing and to make a simp straight forward ruling othen fact there are not new material

facts. thank you. >> thank you. joshua kelly. please go ahead. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yes. >> great. thank you. thank you for listening to all of us here. i am a resident of the outer sunset. i live two blocks from the lower great highway. i just wanted to chime in to say that concerns about neighborhood traffic are greatly over-blown by some neighbors here. friday afternoon things are a little more hectic, but nothing compared to most of san francisco and in terms of pedestrian safety, the traffic that only moved, didn't disappear or appear, the traffic moved in, some gone to sunset. it is going much slower then zipping down the highway on upper great highway. the first week that the upper great highway reopened to cars,

two suv's smashed into each other and created a car fire in front of juda, so my family loves the great highway park. it is huge part of access and experience to the beach. it would be a shame to take that away from this neighborhood over the objections of folks who are not forthright. so i urge you to reject the appeal or whatever version whatever layer of appeal we are getting to at this point, to let you know that the sunset loves the great highway park. really looking forward it to it staying. thank you so much. >> thank you. caller in 4127. please go ahead. 4127. yes. >> hello. hi. i lived in the city over 70 years and i never seen in such disarray. please don't rely on information provided by the city. they are not trustworthy.

look how manyy city officials are in jail. look how many ethics violations the hends of departments have for violating the brown act. that dog and pony videos goes to show how the minority places the fact. there are 27 thousand people who signed the [indiscernible] to keep them open. you see the same number of votes to close jfk voted no to open it and great highway. i personally witness a ambulance on two occasions try to use the great highway, one closed to cars and had to go around. the driver had to get out, move the gate, get back in the ambulance and go back around from sloat boulevard. on the [indiscernible] i greatly appreciate a rehearing, please.

somebody just said about injustice, the real injustice is over 20 thousand vehicles that use the road daily and each car has at least one person and more then likely two. that's about all i have to say. please grant the rehearing. i don't trust the city and these people are ruining it. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the caller phone number 3003. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. yes. go ahead. >> hi. thank you. my name is steven, here to support all the arguments of the appellates and particularly disturbed by the cynicism and actually outraged by rec and park failing to snd anyone here to speak to us. i think what happened is, gm

ginsburg cited by the task force for intentional ethical violations by failing to give us documents. second, as a lawyer, i believe in due process. this out of 3,000 pages of materials submitted, no one from the city side, rec and park, planning, no thought within the pages to include the study, the eei study about the impact on the dunes. so, third, i don't know what the problem is to just have people be able to have a full hearing on this and there's plenty new facts. the appellates all of them suggested all of these and to

say, it was available, well why did rec and park fail to put it on the website, which is the logical place to look? but no, they didn't put it there because they didn't want people to see it because it was disadvantageous to them. and, mr. ginsburg likes to commercialize highways as he tried to put food trucks until all the merchants were upset and he it had to shut it down. i think the rehearing is necessary to air the safety issues, the environmental issues, the health issues and agree with the previous caller, i don't know who to believe because sfmta doesn't show up with anybody, rec and park doesn't come with anybody. dpw isn't here and so the

lonely planning person trying to carry the ball and he admits he didn't read the study. it is so outrageous that this is not-it should have rehearing, and that's what i like to say and also want to thank everyone on the commission for their time and efforts. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the caller phone number ends 5060. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. press star 6. yes. go ahead. >> i'm gene, i urge you to support the appellates request for rehearing. you heard of numerous examples of new information the appellates were not aware at the time of the initial hearing. the study by the estuary,

[indiscernible] instillation of a bench are many examples of new information that could impact your decision to grant the appeal. i also understand numerous public records request made to rec and park and other agencies not fully responded to. the closure of great highway on weekends significantly impacted the community and impact goes far beyond that. as you heard all you need to do is try to drive south on chain of lakes drive in golden gate park after afternoon friday to understand the impact of the closure of this highway. it is also believed to impact the response time of fist responders. i also like to respond to the video showing differences in access of the great highway during the weekend. we all know how much traffic on the great highway during the week. clearly that video showing a empty highway was edited to show a select brief period when there was little traffic. please, disregard that video.

and response to the previous speaker, claiming the closing of the highway reduce green house gas. in fact green house gas increases when the highway is closed. since cars are forced to travel slowly through congested city veets spewing more pollutants. please support the request for rehearing in order to assure you had a chance to review all the relevant information that was not aware of at the first hearing. not just information carefully selected to support their position. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hear from the caller phone number ends in 8791. 8791. you need to-yes, go ahead. >>, my name is lisa and live in d4, outer sunset. i lived in san francisco for 41

years. my entire life, and i just wanted to make a point because a previous caller was saying that there was a city wide vote and those who want the upper great highway open to cars [indiscernible] i have two points regarding that. number one, if you have a entire city vote on a street on a highway on the left most edge of the city, then of course most of the city is going to vote to shut down that street because they don't use that street for important appointments, to go to work, to take kids to school or appointments. most of the city isn't emergency responders having to use that road to follow up and take care of emergencies. you are asking the majority of

the city with no stake in that street, does not need it for important means, oh, is it okay if we shut it down to cars? of course most people without thinking are going to say sure, why not? how would they know how important the street is to other people? my other point is, our state senator scott wiener shortly before the november 2022 election where we all voted on prop i and prop j pleaded on twitter known as x that if you voted yes on prop i it would result in a ecological disaster for city and county of san francisco for ocean beach and for the pacific ocean, so he lied bold face lie to all of california about what the result would be if you vote yes

on prop i. when we have officials at the state level lying to the entire california population telling them if you vote on this it will be a ecological disaster for san francisco and none of our supervisors or mayor stood up and said that was a lie, no one said anything to this day about it, how do you expect san francisco to vote? and i ask you board of appeal commissioners, do you use this road yourself to get to important places on a daily basis? ask yourself that. do you need this road? how would you feel on principal if someone took a road that you needed for your day to day life and people decided to shut it down to go play? think about the moral principal that.

the moral fiber of the city has broken down. >> thank you. your time is up. we'll hear from parker day, please go ahead. >> hello commissioners. my name is parking day, calling today to ask for you to reject the appeal. i'll keep comments brief. the appellates have not shown new material information to support their appeal. one thing to not like something, but another to have a legitimate appeal. you already spent hours of your time the city staff time and the public time in the previous hearing. granting this appeal is counter productive and out of line with the legal process. i urge you to reject the appeal. you already had a full hearing, the appeal was rejected, let's move on. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. any further public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay, i don't see any, so commissioners, this matter is

submitted but before you begin deliberation deputy city attorney huber would like to address the board. >> good evening. because appellates argue that i provided erroneous legal advice and advocated for a particular outcome and want to clarify the record to insure it was clear. first advising the board findings were necessary to grant the appeal i was not advocating for a outcome, and was responded to president lopez inquiry about next steps of the findings if the board uphold the appeal. planning code section 330.5.2 requires this board tew dopt factual findings the project is consistent or not consistent with local coastal program. based on this code requirement, i adviceed if the board were to grant the appeal, it would have to adopt factual findings the permit is inconsistent with the

lcp. i also advised if the board were to deny the appeal and uphold the permit the board could adopt the planning commission fiendings the project is consistent with the lcp. as i stated at the last hearing, i was not offering a opinion on whether the planning commission findings did or did not conform to the lcp. i clarified that was a decision for the board to make. second, the members of the board were provide would the materials that comprise the local coastal program and must come to their own conclusion whether or the highway closure is consistent with that program. appellates took one of my comments of of context arging i advised the board environmental objection do not come into play considering this permit. that is certainly not what i intended to communicate, but let me be clear, the lcp as a

whole contains environmental objectives. i did not mean to suggest otherwise. my comment cited was directed specifically at the western shoreline area plan, objective 2 entitled the great highway which reads, redesign great highway to enhance keenic qualitiess and recreational use. there are series of policies listed under objective 2. these are policies that appellate cite and rely because they specifically address the great highway and the text of those specific policies do not refer to broad environmental objectives, so when i made the statement about environmental objectives i was referring to the great highway objeckive 2 and the policies listed there under. there is single reference to environmental considerations, which is dedesigning parking to afford maximum protection to the dune ecosystem. the local coastal program as a

whole certainly contains environmental considerations. the western shoreline area plan begin with the recognition of city interest in conversation of the coast. objective 6, which applies to ocean beach contains policies that reference continuing the beach as a natural beach area. as another example, golden gate park, there are references to reforestation. based on the board deliberations at the last hearing i think that it very clearly understands that the lcp takes into account environmental objectives to the extent they are relevant to this permit, but i want to be sure the record on that point is clear. third, addressing a question about ceqa review and whether that was conducted, i certainly did not mean to suggest that ceqa review should be equated with a coastal permit. those are two separate processes and the board obigation to review a coastal zone permit and adopt findings

that the permit is consistent or not consistent with the local coastal program is completely independent of the ceqa review or ceqa exemption that was determined in this case. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for those comments. we will start at this end of the table and go that way. mr. trasvina. >> thank you president lopez. i want to thank everyone who participated in this matter tonight and once again, glaringly absent is rec and park department. which has a tremendous impact on the matter which makes things difficult. going to the appellates or requesters arguments, i want to

focus on three of them. the first one is new material, fact 1, permanent bench for 6 on the median. i just dont find that a material fact. i don't consider that a significant. the bench can be picked up by half a dozen kids from si and moved someplace else if needed. it is there. the e-mails describing the city's reluctance to have it there and all the safety concerns are interesting, not sure how they relate to this proceedings. on the issue of this is a extraordinary case, because of statements from our deputy city attorney, i want to distance myself from those entirely. i just do not find any credence

in that perspective. this deputy city attorney worked hard and is expert on assisting the board. i have tremendous respect for her integrity and boss integrity and boss boss integrity and if i didn't, she's described what she said and the context of how she said it. we are all attorneys up here. all most all are attorneys up here and we know the role of a counsel. they gave advice. so, if she attempted to go beyond her scope of authority, i'm confident my colleagues, including the non-attorney would know what to listen to, what not to listen to. that leaves in my mind new material fact number 2, the estuary institute report and there i find it again,

increasingly because of the absence of the rec and park department, and how they treated that report in our earlier hearing. they presented it and referenced it on page 8 and 9 of their brief. and they-i feel there is serious questions how they described it. they said in 2023 the sf estuary institute conducted a study. the study examined existing conditions and challenges to the beach and dunes. building off the ocean beach master plan. the study made recommendation to better manage the sand, habitat reduce erosion and suggest way to implement improvement including native beach grass to improve habitat. they did not attach the report. they attached a letter from the bike sf and advocates, they did

not link to the report. they did not present it. i believe the reason they didn't present it, if you go straight to the first line. it says ocean beach from the report, ocean beach faces escalated dune erosion, primarily due to human induced factors. like informal trails, causing trampling. leading to destabilization of protective vegetation. it goes on talking about the erosion. erosion is driven by the creation of informal trails where major streets intersect the great highway. the trampling of vegetation destroys protective service cover and root systems that stabilize the dunes. it goze goes on to talk about trampling and altering condition. so, this part about trampling because of informal trail s,

when you close the great highway, you are implicitly increasing the foot traffic, increasing the number of areas where people will cross and greatly endanger the dune. but they dont mention that. they dont describe that in presenting it to us, so no wonder people didn't scrutinize it. it is because they misrepresented it . in the report it talks about main challenges from lincoln way to noriega. tampling of vegetation initiate blow-outs. create pedestrian access to reduce vegetation trampling. and then same thing for santiago street to sloat boulevard. this report was very much about the human impact and human impact created by and caused by more people going to the great highway. and that is very very relevant. but we can't question or ask them why they didn't present to

us or hid it or failed to provide it to us. because they are not here. if it takes a rehearing to get them here so we can ask these questions, i believe that is a very new material fact that they did not could have represented and could have provided us information, they could have provided accurate full information back in february, about they didn't. finally, i would say and some colleagues have talked about the coastal zone act and talking about section 3210. carrying out the requirements maximum access to the beach areas. maximum access which posted recreational opportunity shall be provided for all the people. but it is consistent with

public safety needs and natural resource areas that protecting natural resource areas for over-use. ignored here. it comes out in this report, but we would not have known that unless we had access to the report and they could have provided it to us and we could have asked them about them and the appellates could have discussed it. finally, in terms of--i referenced my conversation with corey teage earlier about objection of the general plan. one objective of the general plan on page 110 of this meetings report, respect and preserve the natural values of the land and serve the best interest of all the city citizens. that is objective of the general plan. on both of these counts, respecting and preserving

natural value of the land. this doesn't reflect increasing impact on the dunes and serving best interest of citizens. we heard some are winners from the closures and some not winners. when we talk about objeckive serving all city citizens it doesn't say overall, the city is better off, it talks all the citizens. i would say on a number of these points we have not only do we have a great question about the environmental impact but a more significant question for rec and park who is not here as to why they did not provide us with the report. why they did not describe it fully in the brief in february and why then are we not able to ask the questions as to how much of a impact closing of the great highway has on the e

environment and principal of the california coastal act. i do find that the appellates or requesters have met the threshold and it is important high threshold. they did not meet on couple matters but the estuary i believe we need more discussion about that and a greater discussion which would be-able to be accomplished through a rehearing. >> i very much agree with all of the points eloquently stated by commissioner trasvina. on all three subpoints as well. the bench issue is very much a head scratcher and odd thing, but i don't think it really effects this permit overall. i did take fairly significant

umbridge to the questions of mrs. hubers integrity in the hearing. i want to state that she did not anything inappropriate or incorrect at the last hearing and i appreciate your clarifications tonight. ultimately i don't think they were necessary because i very strongly believe there was nothing untoward or improper at the last hearing. and regarding the estuary institute report, i do think that is the prime directive this evening and the prime piece of evidence that is at least questionbly new and material and i want to put some-i forget who said this earlier, while the report was indeed published in december, it the relevance was not introduced until rec and park's testimony at the last hearing.

that is where i think this comes into play. not the fact it was available in theory at least, even though i think there have been questions raised in the appellate briefing as to whether it was actually available to the public at that point in time. it isn't for us to answer that question. it isn't all that important. the importance was that rec and park cited it as the primary supporter of the argument and i don't-after having read the whole thing now, i don'ts necessarily think it supports rec and park position on this. the standard before us is new material facts presented that impact the decision making process. that i question a little bit. i'm not certain whether the new analysis of this report is going to change the end result

so if we grant the rehearing tonight i want to ask the appellates to bring their a game because there is a big hurtle to overcome. i was on the fence last time and still on the fence but the standard is whether to grant the rehearing request when there is new evidence presented and i think the standard has been met tonight. i do question whether the inclusion of this from the get-go in the briefing is really going to change the outcome. open to the fact it may. i don't know if it will, but i do think that the exclusion of the estuary report from the initial briefing by rec and park and other city departments is-should count as a new material fact that was presented here tonight, and for that reason i would support

commissioner trasvina's viewpoint in granting the rehearing request a bunch of asterisk i expressed previously and i will pass to commissioner eppler. >> thank you. thank you for that and it is great to be able to talk about this this topic having missed the first time around. i certainly agree with my commissioners on the element of the bench and element of the city attorney influence. thank you for the colorful metaphor. the use of the word permanent for something like that is had twitching ever so slightly. not much in the world is permanent, perhaps nothing is and that bench ain't it. i had the opportunity to watch the city attorney instead of being potentially influenced by the city attorney and so having watched the hearing i was surprised by there arguments i

saw in the briefing when i got to the briefing. i agree also with my commissioners that the estuary report is the crux of the matter tonight. i think there are a lot of different factors at play here. i do think that we have our thought process colored by the fact that the rec park department is not here tonight to defend themselves because they were the ones that referred to this report in their brief. i do note it isn't their report, it is their party's report but they did refer to tin the brief. they referred to it with some degree of what appeared to be disingenuity but we can't ask about that and explain what they meant or to probe on that and that makes this part hard. i will say though that i think what commissioner lemberg brought up at the conclusion of their remarks was that the

important part whether this impacts anything and having watched the last hearing, it may effect what rec park argued, but i think famously this board was discounted what rec park argued in that last hearing and find germane exactly to the analysis we had about the permit and appropriateness of the findings the planning commission made. i look at the report and i see these maps and i see maps showing a decade multidecade long process of the lot trampling of dune and some happens after the opening of great highway to bike traffic and pedestrian traffic. some happens before the open of great highway to that type of traffic, and none of it is seen at least from what we see as

after we enter the program we are currently under, which isn't a 24/7 closure to cars and opening to active transportation only, but a two day a week. a trial period that. while we talk about the trampling from the 2000 and 2010 and moving to the 2020, i note this report has one line, one sentence ins the brief and also in the report that says the recent closure of the great highway to car traffic startsed in 2020 during covid-19 lead to less constrained use by pedestrians and increase trampling of dune vegetation that have been observed. commissioners trasvina said that's implicitly that st. it impact so my question is, even more so whether or not the matters how rec [indiscernible] we des counted that in the first place, is that new information? we knew that.

we impplicitly knew that. they knew that and have seen the loss of vegetation the people that live there. it is a obvious fact in a lot of ways y. look and say, does this impact anything. to me i'm not sure it does. i'm not convinced it does yet. not convinced therefore it meets the standards. we talked about policy on this and i see a concern about the policy of using these sorts of studies as a hammer against permits because we want our departments to be in the regular practice of evaluating things even when they have to make findings they think are the case. i don't know if we can punish them necessarily for if their findings are inaccurate after they gather data or qualified more then perhaps they may have originally thought.

then we get to the general plan issues raised, and all of the city citizens doesn't exist. you make a change of anything. i am thinking about that basketball arena, 18 thousand people two events day as year and whether it benefits everyone because it creates traffic and congestion and delays. it is a wonder ful for the city to have but doesn't help all the city citizens. nothing we do from a policy basis effect all the city citizens in a positive way so i can't use that as part of a argument to find that because there have been impacts of this policy and i 100 percent understand and appreciate that, i am a frequent traveller to the western part of it town on saturday. not necessary the great highway, but i have done it, but because it is where i have to go for soccer and baseball

and west sunset and south sunset. occasionally because i'm on the west side of the town i want to go to the richmond so i have to make the crossing over the park. i see it, i get it, i understand things are tougher and i empathize with you on that. sometimes i stumble over words. that's not a reason to get the heart of the issue and it is that that permit and findings by the planning department. and so, right now i am leaning towards denying this rehearing request. >> find something in my

comments that influence you. that is what they are meant to do is provide more information. so, first of all, i really appreciate the public and public comment and tonight's comment and i'm incredibly sympathetic to the local neighbors of the great highway and the traffic issues. i'm sympathetic to folks who say we need a place to go play. there is just going to be that divisive issue, but that's nothing to do with what we are talking about tonight because we talked about that last time. mrs. huber you didn't influence me in the slightest, so-i can do listen but you didn't influence me in the slightest with your comments. i think the crux of this matter is the estuary report.

start from the start. first of all, presented to us that the planning department in the first hearing, planning department came up with findings. it was presented that we were to look at those findings and affirm whether we agreed to those findings or not and if we didn't agree with the findings that we would have to come up with findings of our own that deny those findings. my motion in the last hearing was such that i could not find findings that denied their position. that would hold true. so, therefore i would deny the appeal tonight based on that. however, then we have the issue of the estuary report. planning department didn't have the benefit of the estuary report. inb fact, we didn't have the

benefit of the estuary report. in fact, mr. teage, even though he may have benefit to it, wasn't aware of it or didn't choose to read it and therefore he couldn't put it into his really good report and i emphasize his really-as last time, really good report that swayed me to go the way that i did, but he didn't have the benefit that for whatever reason. so-but in fact, the report did exist, and service to us. it did exist. i think i agree with-i can know i agree with mr. trasvina, because i think i paid reference to this in my heated argument with park and rec or

rec and park. i always get it wrong, sorry. i didn't get a very fair-i didn't get a feeling they were fair and balanced and that is kind of surfaced for me again tonight. they are not here to defend themselves. and so, what was presented as heresay, because that report wasn't provided to us, what may not have been fair and balance is that manifest injustice? is the fact mr. teeg didn't read the report, wasn't presented with the report for whatever reason and wasn't able to consider that report in the presentation last time, is that make that report new information tonight because he didn't have the chance to do it, or is his lack of review to

this day that report manifest injustice because it may have really important stuff in it as pointed out by mr. trasvina that may could have been considered, so is it new information or not even though it clearly isn't new information because it existed and the appellate didn't bring it forward. i have a war in my mind with regard to manifest injustice. it isn't about new information, it is just manifest injustice because one department may have not presented a fair report. we were yot provided the report and couldn't review it and mr. teeg who probably should have considered the report the report wasn't made available and didn't read it even though tonight he said it wouldn't have made a difference, correct?

am i misquoting you? say yes or no. i don't want to slam you really. >> [indiscernible] i wasn't prevented or not provided the report. everyone had access once it was made available. my comments were about the impact of the report on the findings themselves or lack of impact of the report on the findings themselves. >> okay, thank you. so, i think we have to-the report isn't new information because it was available and just wasn't presented from the appellate. the report was not provided to us as part of the materials in the first hearing, and it is arguably whether-because it was

there trasvina argument not mine, i want to make that clear, i'm referring to mr. trasvina argument, not mine, that it wasn't exactly a fair balanced representation by park and rec. manifest injustice, i don't know. not new information. so, i think the key issue is the estuary report and whether the discussion of the estuary report by ourselves because we would have been better informed would have created findings by ourselves in support of the appellate, also i look at the planning commission and say, if they had the report, would their findings have been different as well? so, that's what i'm wrestling with. i told you i didn't have a resolution, but i just want to share my thoughts and feelings. i think it st. the estuary report and representation availability and whether it's

new information or manifest injustice that it wasn't reviewed. that's all. so, have at it. >> thank you. i'll go. before i share my thoughts, mrs. huber i love to turn to you again. a member of the public during public comment i think very astutely pointed to the due diligence prong of the standards at play with the rehearing request. can you give us a little color on that? >> yes. apologies i didn't mention that when i first referenced the standards. section 9 of the board of appeals rules govern rehearing requests and we have been talking about subsection b, which i read the text earlier. provides stroret cases to

prevent manifest injustice, showing of new or material different facts if they were known, they cds have effected the outcome of the hearing. subsection c provides that failure to exercise due diligence to produce the new facts and circumstances at the previous hearing shall be deemed grounds for denial of the request. the other subjections relate to allowing up to three minutes and the rules would not apply to a motion made by the board's own initiative. >> this is a 3-2 or 4-1? >> the code requires-sorry, you asking how many votes? 4. >> it requires 4 votes. >> 4 votes to grant motion for rehearing 4 votes are required. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would say that i land much

more closely to commissioner eppler's conclusion. i share on the bench prong, i would say nice try. on the prong directed at mrs. huber, i would completely echo everything said about her integrity, the quality of her advice to this board and i thank you for your service and feel lucky to have your help. i don't think she was intending to influence us and i would say even if she was, as someone who often tries to influence this body, that's not exactly a easy thing to do. we are not exactly a gang of push-overs here, so that's on

that. and then on the report, i do think we have reason to think that this was available and so the due diligence prong is relevant in my mind with that sequencing issue. leaving that-setting that aside, i think my thinking is in line with commissioner eppler's with respect, even if that isn't a issue at all, would this have changed my mind, and the fact is, i do think the sand dunes were discussed thoroughly in the first hearing. the fact we didn't have the benefit of this supporting evidence in my mind does not

rise to the level of materiality because i think it was thoroughly discussed and considered by this body as a issue that was just surfaced with first hand accounts of what folks have seen in terms of it condition of the sand dunes. the text also that's quoted from the western shoreline area plan states in part that the development shall be "cited and designed in such a way to limit potential impacts". it says limit impacts, not eliminate impacts, and we heard

testimony from rec and park from other departments at the hearing that this is a pilot, this is not the end of environmental review, or environmental scrutiny, this is a temporary program which will still include a significant environmental review and impact analysis and so i think given that the area plan says limit, given that we have full visibility whether it is through the estuary report, or accounts and evidence presented even dating well before the

first hearing, i trust that that environmental review that will still come if the permit stands, that that will seek to address this well known issue. so, i think the report itself--what i will say, i echo the concerns and questions raised by commissioner trasvina in terms of this information, perhaps being presented a little too artfully by rec and park and also regret they are not here so we can ask them about that, but that feels like a little bit of-a little

tangental to the core issue because regardless how this was presented and how it was framed in briefing, in discussion, the substance remains that the report i think only emphasizes a point that was well made and discussed in the hearing and so that substance of the dune trampling was in my opinion considered and there is nothing in the report now that we have it that in my mind causes me to change my opinion that i held at the conclusion of the first hearing. and mr. trasvina, i see you so i'll gee to you. >> thank you president lopez and thank colleagues for their

comments and consideration of all the various things we heard not only tonight, but all most three thousand pages of material that we received, as well as the earlier hearing. i would say as i heard two colleagues talk about the standard and talking well, it wouldn't change our mind because we discussed a lot of this. the standard if we will use it is not whether it would change but whether could have effected the outcome of the original hearing so that standard has clearly been met, it could have changed and could have effected the ability of us to be able to ask questions. the ability of the planning department to have-be able to read it and comment on it, and as well for the appellates to discuss it. it is one thing for the appellates and the member ozf

the public to talk about the impact on the dunes and impact on the environment, but another thing for this estuary institute to report to rec and park and then rec and park hold it back from us. mr. steckal quoted in the report, his commentary and input was significant. he sat here, same person, sat here never once mentioned the human impact that the report talks about. due diligence they brought it to us and misrepresented on on pages 8 and 9 misrepresented what it was. you look at the first line of executive summary and talks about the human impact of the trampling. human impact, not as they say in their brief, the

implementing-expanding growthf native beach grass, it is human impact. now we acknowledged, this great highway project does increase the human trampling of the vegetation. for that vegetation and for the snowy clovers who also die, it isn't a pilot. if we apply that logic to somebody who was killed sitting on bench in the median, as i understand the bench is there for people while there is traffic and isn't and all the arguments from the e-mail in city government saying this is dangerous. if we-nobody-incomphensible somebody says it is a pilot, that bench can stay there even though it killed someone. if we use the standard of it

could have changed the impact, could have changed the hearing, then i think we should move for rehearing. if we depart from that, because this is a extraordinary case and we don't have the requirements in a extraordinary case, i would say it is a extraordinary case. i hope it is extraordinary case that a department misrepresents and fails to provide information they were part of. person who was here was part of the report. didn't characterize it in a way that was different from what the report actually says. that i think is extraordinary case so i would encourage you to look more-give more leniency on that standard and finally as i said earlier, a motion of our own to have a rehearing does not require these standards. whether it is the issue of

could have changed rather then would have changed the outcome, if the standard is this is a extraordinary case, i pleev it believe it is extraordinary case and the third is on our own motion so i think there is ample reason to give the public and give the departments the opportunity to present planning expertise, hopefully rec and park will come back, but it is a deservice to make this decision and deny rehearing with so many questions about the estuary institute report so that is my reasons for approving or supporting the rehearing request. thank you. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i want acknowledge the one who muddied the standard

commissioner trasvina was talking about should versus would. the standard is could and that is it the standard based oen what we need to decide tonight and i do think it could change our analysis if we considered that. my inclusion of items regarding would were [indiscernible] it isn't the standard and was not intended to express that as the standard. >> i'll echo that as well and thank commissioner trasvina for clarifying that and that point is well taken. i think i do think it is hard to argue with that prong hypothetically i think this could-that does not change for me the fact that i don't think

these are new facts. i think these items preexisted. i think that these items -because of the discussion we had of the sand dunes, whether there was a report supporting that or not, in my mind it doesn't rise to the level of a new material fact. i think that what would be different to me is if that item--the sand dune line of discussion had never happened. had never been considered. i think that would be more

reasonable. i think this is a change in degree of information, not a change in kind. that's my view. >> hearing silence presidents lopez, i'll move to grant the rehearing request on the basis of new material information that was not presented at the hearing that could have changed the outcome of the hearing. >> do you want to specify what that is for the record? >> specifically the san francisco estuary institute report and the-just the report.

>> okay. thank you. so, on that motion to grant the rehearing request, president lopez, nay. vice president lemberg, aye. xhilgzer eppler, nay. commissioner swig, nay. abstain. can he do that? >> i think you are required to vote. unless there is a conflict. >> i'll go aye on thes because of the cood factor. >> okay. that motion fails 3-2. requesting denied. do we have another motion on

the table? okay. so, that concludes the hearing, rehearing requests are denied. [gavel] [meeting adjourned]

>> my biggest take away is that you can always find a way. most people who go into public policies really want to make a difference and have a positive impact on the world, and that's what i love most about my job. i feel like every day at the sfpuc all of the policies that we're involved in have major impacts on people's lives both here in the city and across the state and the nation. in 2017, california senate bill 649 was released. it would have capped the fees that cities such as ourselves would be able to charge telecom companies for the right to use or poll for their cell equipments, and it also would have taken away city's abilities to negotiate what the equipment looks like, where they could be placed, and

potentially we could even be in a position where we would not be able to stop them putting equipment especially on our light poles. my name is emily lamb and i am director of policy affairs for the sfpuc. i really am involved with a team of people and building a strong coalition of a team of folks. we are working very closely to get this bill defeated and ultimately vetoed by governor brown. >> emily is one of those people who is a bright star with regards to her passion, her commitment, her tenacity and she's just a great, fun person. she's all of the things that you would want in an employee and an ambassador for our organization. >> my biggest take away is you can always find a way, especially when something is important and worth fighting

for, if you put your heads together with people, and you collaborate, that usually you can find some solution to get to your goal. in this case, it was a bill that most people considered politically difficult to complete, and we didn't have a chance of doing it, but with a lot of strattizing with a lot of different partners, we got it done. my name is emily lamb, and i am the director of policy and government affairs, and i've been with sfpuc for 2.5 years. >> the filling that on encouragement center offers community resources is to the community efforts for the heritage. >> and filipinos features in the community a indigenous community in weaving those

beautiful textiles for hundreds of years we're proud to feature more than one antique ones and other fashioned from the community. and we're trying to have anoffer. >> congratulations on thirty years sfgovtv. your that excellence award-winning programming be shines the light would people need to know about the city thank you for your all you do to show the heritage and bright future more importantly and thank you for your thirty years >> #

>> >> >> >> you are watching san francisco rising. >> hi, you are watching san francisco rising. reimagining our city. he's with us to talk about how our library's economic recover. mr. lambert, welcome to the show. >> thank you. i'm glad to be here. >> i know it's been difficult to have books going virtual. have we recovered? >> yes, we are on our way. our staff stepped up big time during the pandemic to respond to the health emergency. since last may, we have been able to steadily increase in person access to library facilities.

currently we are at 95% of our precovid hours of operation. in the coming weeks we are going to fully restore all of our hours. we have four branches that we are going to bring back to seven day service. they are currently operating at 5 days a week and we are going to go to every tag line and i know all the foot traffic has not returned to san francisco, but our library is seeing a resurgence coming back. >> can we talk about programs after covid? >> absolutely, that is part and parcel of our mission. we were doing that work precovid and certainly the library stepped up during the pandemic. we doubled our level of programming for personal finance, small business help, jobs and careers. we have a dedicated small business

center here at the library. there is a wide suite of programs that our librarian led. we have a financial planning day coming up in october and we have financial coaches that members of the community can come to the main library and take advantage of their expertise. >> i understand the mission is in the middle of a renovation. how is that going and are there other construction projects in the horizon? >> yes, we have major projects in the pipeline. the historic mission branch library, carnegie library over 100 years old and we are investing $25 million to restore that facility. we are going to restore the original entrance on 24th street, the staircase from the lower level up to the grand reading room. we are going to push out on the orange alley side of the library

and expand space for teens and children, we are going to create a robust community room, a multipurpose space. we are also investing $30 million in the chinatown branch, we are going to upgrade the mechanical systems to the highest level of filtration as we increasingly respond as cooling centers and air respite centers and open access to the roof. it has some unique views of chinatown to create the inspiring space it is. >> i believe you have programs for families that have free and low cost entries for museum and zoos, is that correct? >> yes. it's a fabulous resource. go to our website. with your library cart, patrons, our residents can go to the

public library and get passes to the museums, all of the incredible cultural institutions that we have in san francisco all for free with your library card. >> how are these great free services paid for? how is the library system funded? >> we are so fortunate in san francisco. we are funded for by the library fund and those that taxed themselves just for library services. we also get a dedicated portion of the general fund. that together allows us to be one of the most well supported libraries in the nation. we have the third most library outlets per square mile of any municipality. all of our branch libraries have professionally trained librarians on-site.

service that we are able to provide, the collection, we are a leading library in our country. >> that lead know ask about your biggest annual event in the city. how does the event work and what's happening this year? >> we are excited for this year's one city one book. this is our signature annual literature event. we have everybody in the community reading the same book. this year's title is "this is your hustle" named after the pulitzer prize nominated and pod taste. this is about the population. one nice thing about this selection is that they are both local. we are going to have several weeks of programming, kicking

off next month. it will culminate here in the auditorium november 3rd. so our library patrons will get to meet the authors, hear from them directly, and one other important aspect about this year's selection, we have our own jail and reentry services department. recently the foundation awarded the san francisco public library $2 million to work with the american library association to shine a light on our best practices here in san francisco, and really help our peers in the industry learn how they can replicate the service model that we are doing here in san francisco. >> that's great. well, thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. lambert. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, chris. that's it for this episode, we will be back shortly. you are watching san francisco rising. thanks for watching.

television. >> a lot of housing advocates to speak out again poison pills that president peskin my name is jay the san francisco oregon director for mba action and from the action coalition owe a lot of housing advocates as well as some of our elected leaders joining us to push back against this i want to briefly just mention this is not unfortunately, the first thing by the had to get to the with president peskin