be the presiding officer tonight, and he's joined by vice president alex blumberg, who has legally changed his name to alexis levy. lso joined by commissioner rick zweig, commissioner john trasvina and commissioner j.r. epler. also present is deputy city attorney provide the board with any needed legal advice. at the contls i alex longway. and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be representatives

from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. up front, we have corey teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department. we also have kate connor, housing implementation who is also with the planning department, and kate hanna legislative affairs manager with the planning department. we also have up front kevin birmingham, acting chief building inspector with dbi, and carrie mcelroy senior building inspector and plans examiner with dbi. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. no eating or drinking in the hearingsentation are as follows. appellant's permit holders and department respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 to 3 minute for rehearing requests. the parties are given three minutesh with no rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated

verbal warning 30s before your time is up. four votes are required to grant an appeal, or to modify a permit or determination, or to grantquestions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or heg schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sfgov. and participation are of paramount importance sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have :the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. sfgovtv is also providing clos captioning for the meeting. to watch the hearing on tv. go to sfgovtv it will be rebroadcast onidays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is foune page of our website at sfgovtv. forward slash voa now. public comment three ways one in person, two via zoom. go to our website, click on hearings and then the hearing dazoom link. you can also provide public comment by 906 833 and enter the webinar id 81447944569. and is broadcasting and streaming the phone number

and access instructions across of the screen. if you're watching the live stream or broadcast to block n calling in. first all star 67, then the phone number. listen for the p to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes. our legal system will provide you with a verbal warning 30s before your t is up, please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and livestreamed on tv and the internet. therefore, it's very important reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability accoodn can make a request in the chat function to alec longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to the board of appeals at sfgoe chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the pu physically present in the hearing room. now, we will swear in or affirm tify. please note that any member of

the public may speakr rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testat the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, i do. after you have been sworn in or affirm or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. if you are a participant and you put your zoom speaker on mute. so item number one is general puby for anyone who would like to speak on ar not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here to provide general public comment? i don't see anyone in the room. anybody on zoom? please raise your hand for general public comment. i don't see anyone so we're going to move on to item number two. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners seeing none, i think we can move on. item number three, the adoption of the minutes. commissionersble adoption are the minutes of the july 17th, 2024 meeting. any corrections or additions?

commissioner trasvina, i'd like to move the adoption of the july 2020 four minutes. okay. is there any public comment on this motion to adopt the minutes? okay. seeing none on that motion, president lopez vice president levi i commissioner epler i commissioner swig i. so that carries 5 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number four. this is appeal number 24 041. alex plowman and cynthia smuszynski versus department of building inspection, subject proper issuance on june 20th 2024 to daniel booza of an alteration permit ad one ac unit at flat roof at middle roof ac unit weighs approximately 300 pounds. this is a permit application number. 2016 08256097 shows two by ten roof joists. sister to existing roof joistsjed is number 06184755. and as i let you knowre the hearing, the parties have come to an agreement andg(s

the permit. this agreement has been provided to you in advance with the hearing materials and also prior to the hearing, dbi confirmed with me that these modifications are code compliant. so unless anyone wants to address the board we would have to take public comment and then have a motion to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to incorporate the conditions listed in the agreement submitted by the parties for the hearing. so did any of theaddress the board? it's not necessary. did did. no. thank you for your tim. okay. thank you. did dbi want to address the board? no. okay. is there any public comment on this item? hand. okay hi, ge involved in appeal number, 16 dash 153, and it was partly an enforcement case several years ago. and the the big thing that happened out of it, besides saying to remove

the stairway and supposed to be there because they put they wereission planning commission said no roof deck was. they put air conditioning units on the roof and just to just to give the board some context this board just said no you should put it in the yard. and so i'm just thinking maybe that's an objective standard that needs to be thought of. thanditioning unit should be in the yard. thank you. thank you. is there comment? okay. i don't see any okay. so do we motion? commissioners? do i actually wanted to ask because the agreement says that they would be willing to drop the appeal and agree to the solution. but we can also,q of appeal and apply all the conditions, which is grant it's better for us toe action. and i've advised them of that. i think they've submitted th, in that case, i would move to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that, the

conditions and the that the condition is that rather than whole thing in, there's quite a bit i will for the written d the conditions. great. let's just do that then. thank you. and what is the basis of your motion on the basis that the parties have come to an agreement which is code compliant. okay. okay. great. so on commissioner trasvina i commissi i commissioner swig. hi. okay. so that motion 0 and i can let the parties know there's do we want to waive the right to request a rehearing? then i can send send out the decision tomorrow if you if the appellants and the permit waive their right to a rehearing, i agree well. okay. thank you. so we'll get that decision out for you nk you. thank you. okay. and so we do have a request from president lopez to move item six before item five. so we're going to do the presentation after item after item six. so thank so we are moving on to item number

six. this is a rehearing request for appeal. number 20 670 shotwell street. beth miles, the permit holder is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 24 dash 032. mickey cristerna and art cristerna versus the department of building inspection, which was decided on june 26th, 2024. at that time, upon a motion by commissioner trevino, the board voted 5 to 0 to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it was not properly issued because dbi lacked understanding about the impact the permit would have are making art. christina. the permit description is removed. one existing exterior door remove one existing interior door and fill openings to match existing. install one new exterior fauci single light d install one new four foot by six foot pocket door interior. two foot by six foot swing door. two six inches. sorry i don't have my glasses swing door inte in the rear yard. this is permit number 2024 zero four zero nine 9596 and we'll hear from the requester first. and sh represented by mr. roso.

welcome. you have three minutes. great. thank yourybody. good evening commissioners. my name is laura astrazeneca. npatterson and o'neill and represent miss miles today, we're here today tot that the board rehear this appeal because of some the decision was made. most importantly, the decision to revoke the grounds the city should basically review the perm information about the relationship of the properties ended up not being possible business and tax code. article one section 31, which essentially says that an applicant cannot apply for the same permit within a year. and the city the building and planning department have made a to this permit. and so miss miles would not be able to apply this scope of work within a year, it took them a while to figure out what their position was on that. and we went back and forth withhe tr a while. on july 29th, they told us affirmatively that that was their y's position was. aneceived notification on july 29th, we did reach out to appellant and her attorney, we met with them. we went over

what we proposed to do and how we proposed to accommodate some of their concerns, we also for a permit to restore the side door, which i know the board was very concerned about at the last hearing. so that permit has issued, and so that go. when we talk appellant, it seemed like the primary concerns were the gates so we did discuss with mr. birmingham removing the gate in th, because that was put in for fire department reasons. it sounds like we would be able to remove that gate. we have to check with fire, but that should alleviate that concern. the side gate we're offering to lock and not allow any short term rental guests to use that gate and limit th know is something else that the board was concerned with last time. but the current situation is manifestly unjust to m forward and her property may be in purgatory for up to a year. if the board doesn't rehear this that's unfair to her. she spent a lot of moneythlr and the board largely didn't have issues with a lot of the

work. the interior doors, the door to the rear yard. it was primarily concerns door so that the access would be in the easement 32nd, so for those reasons, we would like the board to grant the request so that we can propose revisedt think would be acceptable to the board, that would, you know address the concerns here. unfortunately, the appellant doesn't support our requests. we mind, we've tried to accommodate her concerns with thel she had any concerns with the interior doors, though. if sheto try to address those as well. but we think thate best outcome and it would alleviate these problems and give us a thank you. thank thank you. we will now hear from the appellants. welcome. you have three minutes, three, we have the, what do you

want to show? i'm not here, no just in a minute. not at first. okay. right away. if that's okay. yeah. justow okay? you can just say overhead when you're ready, okay afternoon, commissioners. member of the board, it's really nice to see you again. i'm here with my two boys. myband's late from work. oh, i respectfully request that this rehearingd. your your decision to revoke the permit on june 26t just decision. there is no reason to have another heaz÷ring on this matter. there has been no manifest injustice towards beth miles, and there is no new information as much as it's nice to see you all again and spend the afternoon with my family, a request for a rehearing on a matter t resolved should not be the reason that we're here. it's unfortunate that beth miles chose to submit

this request ins us after the hearing on june 26th. it wasn't until by dbi and planning that you, the board discussion with us. we received that request on august 1st, five weeks after we had this hearing on the 26thth only two weeks left until this hearing. we thank you for encouraging this dialog. we wish it had started earlier. we met on unfortunately the agenda provided was only a review that they have their beautiful plans drafted by. you friend, an architect, his skills with the software are great and the drawings are beautiful. however what's missing was a discussion about why the permit was appealed, how the work related to to an unneighborly, bad behaviorork violated our csns. the only plan that has been approved in this condo plan is our signed crs plan unfortunately, the plans beth miles and her tms presented to us are the ones they submitted

to. you conflict with our ccnrs and the condo plan and include giving access to our exclusive use property andntss that we have not approved. so we'll need moreoñ time discuss which you want the overhead overheadpt. i paused your time. did you want the over screen. oh yeah. yeah, yeah. sorry. okay. overhead to show whalt only one that's been approved. thank you. yeah currently, beth miles, airbnb renters are not entering our property anymore. they are going through her front doors. so this this should be good news for her. she's allowed suite with her renters going through her front door. it's her prerogative nothing in our code that says that she can have access to our exclusive use property, give her renters airbnb renters access to any part of our property. the easement, driveway or otherwise. we are now able to s better, feel a bit safer knowing that she knows that this is the r thing to do. however, we still have a lot of work as neighbors, some of which might be working together to design and build. a fence or

other permits, but we've learned a lot. we learn. we hope beth miles and her team feel the same way. thank you for listening. okay. thank you. did the planning department want to weigh in? good evening, president lopez. commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator for the planning department specific question of the rehearing request, i would just note one thing that was already raised which is on theat wasn't discussed or presented at the last heari and that really is the business and tax code prohibition for one year. if a permit is denied, you permit appeal is before the board more or less have three optionseny the appeal, you can grant the appeal and modify the project or add conditions to it, or you can grant the appeal and deny the permit the distinction with the denial is that it does come with this essentially a one year, prohibition on kind of essentially reapplying for the same or essentially the same, a

very close permit, the reason that's somewhat new and whether ou know, to have you vote in any particular way is but it just impacts the work, or propose very similar alternatives within that year, and i think they already addressed the issues of, you knowtly there not being any kind properties and the rear. the new fence would create that. it wastes and the side door and the access there.ial for a rehearing request not to necessarily request that that permit that was originally iss reinstated as it was but to actually work on an appeal and a revised permit thaall the issues. so, i just wanted to confirm and verify that that is in the business and tax code. the on denials of permits and applications, just so you're aware of that and i'm available for any other questions you may have. thank

you. commissioner swig. i prior to the hearing, that information that you just laid out and what the risk reward was, the risk, the risk being, you want to go you want to go through with this and the risks that y that if you lose you're it's one year. was that was that public information made made public to the and made available to, the permit holder and the permit holders attorney, i know provide that information to them, and i'm n aware that the planning department would have applied this, provided this information to them over the counter. i have to defer to my colleaguesf a if that is that language is any way in like a standard way provided to applicants on the front end for a building permit? yeah i mean it. i

believe that public information, is it not? and ifing through a permit process, it would be on the pieces of the due diligence that they might look at. it's a very obscure section of the business and tax code. so that is technically available online. the question of how, that information is c either the planning department or dbi in a permit p from a planning department perspective, since it's a building permit, it kind of starts and ends. it's dbi permit. so we don't generally provide that information or that type of, we generally don't provide th information upfront. and so i'd have to defer to dbi if that's information that is ontherwise. part of the public information that's provided online or paper permitting process. okay, maybe mr. birmingham can address that because that's appropriate, and but i'll do one more follow up question. it having having

served on this commission for a while, it is something that you've heard me brought up bring up many times, which is if we deny this permit or deny this appeal tonight that permit is denied. what is t amount of time that the does the applicant an adjustment for that permit is that iwe hav said that many times, have i not i'm not sure if i understand exactly. i mean, so when in many in, in, in, in past, i, i do think that i've, i've my knowledge of the situation that if we deny this permit tonight by denying the appeal and i'm speaking generically on about many cases then, then what is the term for reapplication for this permit and at which point you have stated or, or your surrogate has stated one yea or you've stated, well it's generally one year but this could happen

that, that, that could change. i mean, i, i don't remember don't dispute that that could have been a question in some case in the past. let me, let me move on let me get to question here. clearly, clearly, i, i agree with the position that has been taken because i've seen it occur before, and it's for me, it's face value. i know thatpu always hasn't had the benefit of sitting on panels for the circumstance come up and may not see that as face value, but what what generally the follow up question is when that question is asked, what is there another way that the a reapplication that there is ation shortcut to anot fundamentally the same thing, but takes out the items that were problematic or is it a is it a full under under all circumstances, a full one year

hiatus until a new permit casued? so is there a way around sure that the business and tax code is not doesn't give like explicit instructions on how much of a deviation from the denied permit is necessary before you can apply. so that's always kind of a case by case determine's always going to be some scope of work that is similar to the denied permit that would be allowed to go forward within year. there's just never you know, we can't say exactly wha specific parameters provided in the code, and it's a case by case determination. oka said, if, if in fact we we deny the rehearing request, then the door isn't necessarily slammed and that what i think was thez= general is our general feeling on this commission not necessarily related specifically to this case, is that we at mr. trevino on this is communication is a wonderful thing. and íj if two

parties get together, two parties that have a differwping opinion get together and try to hash it out, then maybe they don't have to come here in the first place. but but certainly communication is a really good opportunity. so if, if we were to deny the rehearing request there is the possibility that these two parties could get together. these two parties could discuss a scope of of work might leave out something. i'm not gog to specify what or if and that with that leave out, then a reapplication forimilar scope, but not the same scope of permit could be made within a year. it's technically pthat scope would be relative to what was what was denied. i think the i don't want to speak for the applicant. i think the challenge with this aittle bit hat it's not just about the physical aspects, it's about the interrelation between the aspects. so because one of the big issues that was raised bye they removed the side door and added the rear door and the requiring if

you don't go in the front door, you had to go aro. with the changing dynamics of adding the side a fence and a gate that is not used in that manner, and you have the sideically, it's very similar to what it wasnctionally it's somewhat different. and whether that's enough of a difference, i don't know. but there's just a question of whether or not that's something that would potentially get board or would have to essentially wait a. but that would require a whole rehearing. but there's really no new evidence. you know, there'st we could have done this the last time, which is what's bugging me here, thank you for that. and mr. birmingham can address the other piece of it you. okay. thank you. we'll65. yeah good evening, president lopez. members of the board, kevin birmingham, representing dbi. so as to your question that information would no have been a supplied to the

applicant because basically they wouldn't be appealing their own permit. so therefore they wouldn't have that information or we wouldn't have supplied it to them. so any other questions? okay. we have a fewthat it, president lopez and then commissioner eppler. sure thank you, mr. birmingham. does dbi have a position on when the when the clock starts on, on the one year prohibition? that i can't say, but i would say probably guys initiated your first decision, it would have been the reason i ask is i'm looking at tax code article one, section 31 and it does have language third line from the bottom of the excerpt in, the permit holders brief has%j saying speak into the microphone saying, referring to

the date of, quote, the original the date which quote the original applica. and the and so i'm wondering if we're really talking about june 26, which is our decision or the original date of the permit, i'm not sure about that. i'd have to go backb= our plan checkers and our legal to see if that's when theyn the year would start from got it. and then separately, is there any, you know, guidance, guidance or parameters that are shared with applicants with respect to when something is the same? permitt new permit? no. i mean, it's the plan checker that feels this is basically the same work as what was on the previous application. you know there there is some wiggle room. i mean, unfortunately, in this one there's not a lot of work involved. so it's, you know, you could take out the fence because

it no longer requires a permit. you could do several other things, but at the end of the day, it's a small interior%0reff door onto the back of their own backyard. they have gotten the permit to reestablish the side door that was removed. that basically brings them back to, you know, the first square again, where they were you know, gives them time to work out. maybe between themselves, it sounds like they're starting to work together and go in the proper direction. so hopefully they can work something out. but and then lastly to point with respect to working things out, is there an avenue for, for folks in the permit holders position to interact with dbi perhaps talk to, you know, somebody who who may eventually review the permit application about, you know, workj[ that, that the anticipate bein put him in contact with the senior plan checkers and they can work out exactly what they want to see on the

plans anday it. that could be a workaround to grant them a new permit. so then this this wouldn't be a one year prohibition on the department. oh, no. it's a prohibition on the new application taking effect. yeah and like you say it's hard to tell when the year starts. and, you know, is the year set in stone but you know, we can definitely communicate with our plan checkers go over the scope of work. is it considered the sam work? is it a different scope of work? thank you. surem3 quick question is so t original permit, the one that we, wee removal of the side door, is the problem here that a new permit was pulled fix the side door. and then there was another permit pulled for the rest of the scope of work, because that's a material difference. i mean, a maybe it's not material enough but that is a material difference between the two permits. if all of this work were still under a single permit is the problem that now have different permits, and

one of those permits looks very similar two objects from the original permit, and one of them stands alone yeah. you could probably incorporate them both into the same permit, and that might, you know, turn into one permit, which a substantial different scope of work. but the, the second permit was basicall your direction to reestablish the door back in from the easement to the downstairs proi understand how we got to that change. i guess the question is why now two permits instead of one that might be materially, materi looked at in first place the one you that you suspended. you can't get a revision to a suspended permit. so it's basically a separate standalone permit is how r it was. they had to get that permit. right, right. i but instead two instead of one they got two instead. and that seems to a major part of why we're having this conversation. right now. okay. thank you. all right. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. so we will now move on to public comment. is there anyone in the room who

would like to provide public comment? anyone in the room? okay. the podium and give it to alec we'll have your name correct for the minutes, but you can go ahead and start. you canc speak in the mic, but the speaker cards are right there. please. sure. yeah. you can stand right there and you have three minutes to address the board. okay? three minutes. okay my name is carmen. i live in 19 and valencia, and i'm good friends with beth living in. i'm from ecuador. i've been living the past 30 years in the mission on 19 and valencia and, i've been friends with beth for 20 years, and she both raised our kids who are my daughter is 21, hers is 22. and, in a aach other. in fact, when my neighbor downstairs was doing some fixes and we had to go somewhere to because the smell was a strong,

she immediately her place a i just wanted to talk her in that regards. and how we i've known her. i am from ecuador, i feel like us as living in san fran from everywhere, and we found in san francisco a pla where we feel good that we like it and where our kids weredaughter was born in here. 22 years ago, and and i feel like we are from here. so i either of us is an outsider. she has always worked her first initial work was with children's/x clothing to be with her daughter. she worked with sfmta's and she lived i the castro. and when she divorced, she had wanted for many years to and live in the city. and i know this has been a to be able to get a place where she could live with her family goes to sf state here, and yeah. and i. yeah. do you want me to go for it? yeah. okay. we're going to restart the time. so you have three minutes are you. i still have my three minutes.

yeah. so in regards to her ethics she's i feel like she's a super ethical pys been like, we are part of a group of working women in the city come from the mission, bernal heights castro. so we live in the city. we are participants of the city. and she's workedren's clothing. she's worked with habitat for humanity in fact, in her page, you could see that northern california and in her work that she does right now it's in regards to the environm and, and i know that again, she worked really hard to find a house and to make her house ahe sn who is very inclusive. when she had a house opening in everywhere. her painter, the person from the street oh so then juste, eclectic sort of people. and she arranged her house beautifully with second hand stuff that she's found everywhere, because she has and nothing just to say that as i feel. and i've been living here for three

years, and i've lived in the mission for 20. anywaysa speaker card. you put your name on the card, the person who just spo$kken. you can speak now ma'am. you can go ahead. okay my name is nancy zacchaeus. and i think, well, carmen and i are mischaracterization of beth miles. we've known her for a bay area native. i've lived since 1992. i've raised my family. i've own a home. i have a business here with my husband. in 2016. when/g our daughters went to high school together, and we've been friends i worked with beth in her business, which her entire business is predicated on sustainable, sustainable lifestylesliving simply and uplifting uplifting. other people such as fair wages and shopping local. this business is a direct reflection

of who beth is as and the type of person in business that we should strive to support. in san francisco, one of the most kind and giving people i know. beth is always making sure that other people have what they need first, and she's extremely things to people together. i would wee#tive interactions beth has had with people. i know that beth moved to san francisco to become a design director , a san francisco apparel apparel. somerset's father came to take the#i job at sf mta to develop 511. they as a family, have been committed to impacting the city and the culture in a very years. she's not new to san francisco. beth's commitment to community is shown teaching at cca. she helps on various organizations, helps women entrepreneurs, and one of my favorite interactions she's been having lately is withictoria house. she has fostered some friendsh, and she's been contributing materials, and her with their gardening and

their artwork. because beth is a person, if she sees there's a need, she acts on it. she's very community driven. i witnessed firsthand some say in conclusion that beth is an extremely a lot to get this house in san francisco. a yeara anything, i just want her and her great space that she's created. so i hope you take that into consideration. seconds. thank you. next speaker, pase=&. hello president lopez, honorable members of the board. my name is speaking. i'm here on behalf of mickey and ar , 30 year resident of to know mickey and art at the playground. both of our kids vista, horace mann. and you get to know somebody at the playground especially the parents. they approach every calm, an open heart, and a willingness to

learn. and they're very patient vocation as educators to be patient heard they reached out and said, you know we're in a tough spot, we're at the board of appeals. and in your wisdom, i think each one of you saw that something's happening here in which a duly issued permit from the city and county of san francisco, fr inspection, that affords each one of you jurisdiction . and you did. and i think you did the right thing because we have to hit the reset button because this was built. the good neighbor, the good neighborly, according to mickey and art, which they've shared with you, didn't didn't happen. and it should have. and again, these are two very modest people. they are loathe to create discomfort with yourf courage for them to come up here and dopermit

comes the rights and privileges. rights and privileges of that permit thate permit holder. you get to do whatever it is that you cant it also comes with responsibilities and ignorance of what those and wherever they are in the state code or thxz z is largely irrelevant. they have to know once i get a permit. these are the conditions to abide by, so i agree with mickey and art. i don't think there's been any material new information that warrants a we people want it to work out good. good fences make good neighbors, but we don't have a good fence here. 30s and so thank you for your time and thank you for your actions at this last year, the last hearing on this matter. and i will fill out a card. thank is there any further public comment from anyone in the room? okay. please approach the podium. ma'am, you can come forwardju.

my name is betsy nolan. okay. ma'am, can you please speak into the microphone? i'm sorry, i wasspeaking into the wrong thing. okay no worries. thank you. you could pull it down. thank you. this is the microphone. okay? okay i'm betsy nolan, and i've known mickey and art for some time now. and what i've been struck by is the incredible neighborho live and which they are revered, and what i don't understand is why they're so hoa member has diffic in communicating with the people who live right!r. while she can speak the city and get all sorts of things done. she completed this project without telling mickey and art what she was doing. and they and the boys, which property late at night, and they were obviously a bit apprehensive, as

we are in san francisco these days, it would hav e been appropriate, perhaps, for beth to tell them that she was doing this before she did it and just tell her when they're there. i also question why it's so difficult for not allow people who are staying there to enter and leave through the front door which is perfectly accessible to the to the rental space. i making art have lived on shotwell for more than 20 years, and i've been absolutely stricken with joy about the community that they are part of and the love that goes between people there. and i wish new person felt less entitled to do her own thing and more entitled to reach outthe community and to her neighbors and to speak to them. thank you. okay. thank you. is there anyone else in the room who wants to provide public comment? okay. is there anybody on zoom, please raise your hand. you may have if you called in. okay.

i don't see any further public comment. so, commissioners, this matter is submitted commissioners, let's start with commissioner swig. i thank you very muchink we're continuing the hearing that we had, last month, i wish that the, i wish that some of the the proposals that were that could have been made in ouaring, very same issues could have been made last month. i wish that the permit holder would have been more the opportunity of having those conversations with the neighbor to resolve these issues, which now seem to be resolvable, i don't see the, i , because of an airbnb, customer has toe front door but that that doesn't stop, the permit holder

from, doing the business, doinog an airbnb host, and so i don't think it passed the test for a, for a rehearing. thank you.preciate you comme conditions of the test because i guess that what we i am a little bit frustrated becau i bureaucratic morass. i think that we had a very clear conversation about the permit. and instead of giving a set of line item changes to the permits that we wanted to see invalidated it for there to be revisions made and to be thing that befuddles i mean, i'm, i'm conceed that this entire thing may be caused by the fact that ! permits instead of one permit, and whether or not it is caused by two permit is in the determination

of the plan checker and is any thing that we did in our lastrio i don't think it was our intention to cause there to be no permit to remediate all of thea

delay, that wasn't newme across the desk which implies to me that the standard been met because it didn't come up in the l new. it's not a new code section thatt effect then, and it wasn't brought up in the hearing again. that's correct. but i certainly was awar and, you know if that's the only new information that's being presented, i don't see grounds to grant a rehearing. you had other conditions changed last hearing on this matter. we could have coml like we took into account the totality of the circumstances and came ultimately to a unanimous, to grant the appeal in full, which is something we often do in this body. we usually if we do grant an appeal, it's usually with conditions. and we nevertheless made the full. knowing that that wasn't normally the case.h- i would not be inclined to grant the rehearing request. while the

permit holder is entitled to make a rehearing request, it's regrettable that we are back here for the reasons that my colleagues have stated and been clear from the last proceeding, it was greater communication among the neighbors among the co hoa participants. that clearly hasn't happened, but miss miles does not have is not out of opportunities for relieféé. there are as, as i as i read the language of the business tax regulation code the year starts earlier than when we took our action. but that's something that you've got to findawyer. you've got tremendous friends. and your lawyer canrgument. i think there's a lot of there's a lot of within the within the department to provide you the kind and having the appellants having the originalistance

communication and support on that, i think would help you, so, so i do think whenout a like permit covering the same location, not permit, but a like permit that there's opportunities for for the agency to give you o relief that that that you are seeking have met the, met the standard for adj hearing. but this is not this is not a question about who's the nicer neighbor who's contributed more to san francisco. you both are people of character. you've brought your two fine sons to this meeting. you've brought your good friends. people have spoken for you. you've gotocates but in terms of what we have before a rehearing, i don't believe that the standard has been met, miss huber. i, i would just want to clarify for the board that the one year period likely commences at the point of the board's action. and the reason that is, is because permits often come before thisy years

before the board takes action. and so if were to interpret it any other way, it would allow a party to sort of come before the board, get a denial and then immediately apply for the same permit. so my reading of the code is that then said application by said board would be this board's action. so i just wanted to make sure that clarification. i think it would be a one year bar from the date of the board's action, not from the date othe original permit issuance. in this circumstance. commissioner trasvina i, i don't expect you to provide further legal answer on this, but but perhaps it's something that the that the attorney and the and the age the city attorney can work out. but as i read page three of the file on page two of the of th$ie of miss miles attorney's

presentation, it talks by said officer. it's going to be heard by the department. the officer of the department is not going t by us. so perhaps that's something that might give them soainly i'm in no position to make a legal determinationwe look to our city attorney. but but my reading is, isdm there might be some possibility of a of a different reading, buterybody else, yeah. in my i agree, i knew i'll echo vice president levy's comments that, the, the existence of the one yeot, was not news to, to all of us think that it's, i think for, for, for myself and and i'd ask my fellow commissioners to consider this that that may be something that we want to bold and

underline to the parties because it, you know some more spi conversations on the part of a permit holder. understand the, the reach section that we're talking about.eah, i agree with my fellow commissioners that t standard has not been met. and, i will add and again, we can only s+x in the permit before us but i also echo some of commissioner eppler's comments that, it does seem like8$ there's there's grounds, potentially, for, for for having the, the the representative from dbi in question really examine whether considered an entirely new, proposed and considered by the holder, so that, you know, we wouldn't

proceed with the rehearing request to hear that same first permit. but that's not to say that some elements of that wouldn't be able to be into any future permit, that that's, that's pursued, so with that to deny the rehearing request on the basis that the standards for rehearing requests have not been met. okay. so we have a motion from president lopez to deny the that there's neither new evidence nor manifest injustice on that motion. commissioner trasvina, a vice president levy i commissioner epler i commissioner swig i so that motion and request is denied. okay. we are thank you for your patience. we are now moving on to item num item, an informational presentation by the planning department and the assembly bill 1114, which became effective january first, 2024. assembly bi 1114 regulates post entitlement phase permits this overview of the bill and san francisco's implementation approach and welcome to take connor by chance. i have

it on a usb and these. yeah, we can just put it on the laptop. need some help? alec can help you if you needhe has it on a usb. if you. okay. okay. overhead. okay. thank you. it's showing now. thank you very . tate hannah, legislative affairs manager for the department of building inspection. i appreciate the time this afternoon. sorry about that, tate. hannah legislative affairs manager for the department of building inspection. i appreciate the time this afternoon, commissioners, so diving into ab 1114, which, as you mentioned, was just enacted and took effect january 1st, going to step back a bit to the

existingore ab 1114, as it sort of lays the groundwork for what the law does. see on the slides there's really the bedrock laws, the permit streamlining actwhich was passed back in 1977 77, excuse me, and sets various timelines for permits tog before the entitlement process leading up to it. ital agency to determine if an applicationete and let the applicant know whether it's complete or not, as well as set specific timelines for approving or denying a project, depending on the type of project andjr qualifiers. the permit streamlining act has been amended numerous times, but some of the largest changes came in the past o, two three four. by now, speaker rob rivas sort of the framing of the permit streamlining act and applied it to post entitlement permits. so specifically for post entitlement permits that are applicable for two third residential projects. so it set a 15 day window instead of a 30 day window to determine completeness of an applic applicant of what they're missing if necessary, as wellr denial timeline for 30 days. if it's 25

units and under, and 60 days for projects with over 25 units over 26 units. excuse me, two other requirements in ab two, two three, four require local enforcement agencies to provide clear requirements for applications, as well as examples of complete applications. and then it required online, permit intake and processing. so again, that was that took effect is the government code section that we're going to beoday. so ab 2234 specifically defines post entitlement permits to mean the following. all non-discretionary permits and reviews filed after the entitlementeen completed that are required or issued by the local agency to beginstruction of a development that is intended to be at least two thirds residential, excluding discre planning permits, entitlements and other permits and reviews as specified, so 223, four apply to essentially everything after the entitlement phase, but only. so the city and county of san francisco largely did not implement ab 2234 because, as you all are well aware everything is discretionary and so that's where ab 1114 came in by assemblymember matt haney. and really it only

provided two tweaks to thernment code section that 2234 put into place. and it switched the definition of a post entitlement permit to being anything issued under the california building whether it's discretionary or not. so that essentia but two made it applicable in san francisco is that it removed the ability for pt ti permits to be appealed, or for additional hearings to be placed upon that permit, and so that has changed how dbi functions and some of the major changes that we've implemented in the department include, you know juom law and creating those checklists of what is examples onto our website. we have a whole list of different residential examples and are expanding more of those checklists, for their publication, we also improved our online permit intake process. we previously had an online intake process, but it was a bit outdated. and 1114 ab 1114 us to update that. additionally, we instituted a preplan check station, which is now the first step for an applican they sit down at the preplan check station and

get told what is they get a better understanding of what's needed for that comp check process. another large change is the concurrentcations prior to ab 1114 thements would, would, would do things sequentially. so dbi would look at it, thent it to fire and other relevant departments and agencies. now we're able to because of 1114, sit down and look and review an application at the same time that fire is able to we're able to issue comments at the same timed+'% and have that process be significantly truncated. and lastly, we instituted more data tracking. obviously there's quite a bit of data tracking going on with these permits but 1114 required us to track data around the completeness check and timelines that it institutes. and so i won't data here. but you can see in terms of completeness checks, we meet that 15 da9.6% of the time. so nearly 100% accounting for human and occasionalr. and then in terms of the actual plan check and applor denial of a permit, we meet those timelines 97% of the time. so the department is dof how we are implementing and trying to stay in compliance with ab 1114, and happy to answer any questions with me. is

kate connor from the depa planning, as well as my dbi colleague kerry mcelroy, to answer any technical questions much. we do have a question. do we have any questions? commissioners. commissioner trasvina, thank youtation, your role as legislative affairs manager at dbi. so before this bill was enacted, didoc did the city make any presentation or provide any input or testify for or against it, i can't speak to that. i've only been in this role for two months, so i was not was moving through. i was actually working in the state legislature. i can't speak to if it, but it was not the bill moved through the process ot big testimony, not large hearings. there wasn't a lot of controversy asll, i don't i don't know whether we have a chance to dg to be in the form of questions and answs to me that that the changes in 1114 have a direct and a pretty dramatic

effect on residents of s francisco and cases that come before us. andg, you you work for dbi but it seems to me that this this there are there's less oversight and fewer. there's there are fewer eyes on dbi decisionsi÷ through eight, 11, 14 because it takes away the right for neighbors or otherslt t. it has and but but it also means that there are there are fewer cases that come before us. and i'm wondering role to advise this board of changes or pending legislation that affects us, that may or may not affect dbi or affect dbi differently? you're asking if that's my role. i'm wondering whether you see it as your role to advise us on. my role typically is to advise the department and the buildingd be happy to add to my role speaking to you all about e updates. if they pertain to your jurisdiction. yeah. okay. well,

i'm not you to do that. but but i'm just i, i see this legislation as and law as affecting the ability of residents to be able to appeal matters and that's important to our board in a difis to dbi. so there's a gap, whether it's yound fulfilling it or whether we fulfill it. i don't know is, how do you or how does the department educate the public, not those who are seeking the application, but those who would otherwise be thinking they have a right to appeal or challenge a decision of dbi. so dbi and we've updated our website numerous times over tryings information is available to the public. i think proactively addressing a pool of people that are potentially appealing could be anybody in the city. and so i think, you know, an education

campaign like that might be under the purview of dbi. but we have made this information very much available. and i will note again, this law was authored by the assembly memberha francisco. and so i know that his office was communicating do you mind speaking into the middle microphone since you're quite tall? sorry. thank you so much. it will help o viewers, commissioner swig. one just a nitpicking technicalquestion. could you go back to your presentation page one, please? computer, please is that the one i want, second one, i think the second page, maybe it had to do with the number of days it. it was the a, b to the. yeah. so nitpicking part is where itindow. is that 15 business days or is it 15 calendar days. so i know off the

top of 60 day window or the 30 and 60 day window are business day timelines? and so i would imagine that 15 day timeline is as well. i don't want to misstate if that's not the case but i do know for a fact that for ab2234, the approval timelines are based off of business days, and i would wager that the completeness check is kind of important just for future. it's kind of important because you're presenting to the public. the public looks at that and they don't know whether it's business days or the calendar that detail may be important foruture presentation to a public that is interested. i like i said, it's a nitpicking, it's kind of important. no, of course, and i'd be happy to get you that informatioy, secondly, you did a great job of squeezing a really long documentha quite a long time to read this past couple of days intonq- a very concise situation and i thought it was maybe a little over concise because man, there's a lot of stuff in that legislation beyond your very, very efficient presentation same concerns that commissioner

trasvinacause even though it was represented by an asf the city of san francisco, it's still pretty broad and san francisco is anything but broad brush. if you want to go see broad brush, go into the suburbs and see little boxes that are in. i won't name want to insult those suburbs. but you know, there's pretty generic housing in many of the suburban areas in sanor housing businesses, buildings, whatever. generic because we are a patchwork of individual neighborhoods and districts. and so it's really hard to do from my view, a generic broad brush legislation like t that's why i felt the sametrasvina. i think is like this really applies to my neighborhood. i thought it applied to their neighborhood because theirood. so i think that's probably a difficulty. but wcan't do

because it's a done deal. but that say this is a done deal, is this is this 1114 subject to, potential litigation or, or legal challenge by, by any interested parties? i'm not i'm not trying to bait anybody to do that. but when something like 1114 is done, which is, which is going to be confusing to some, as theyeally want to do that in my neighborhood, and i have no way to appeal it, that that might create the initiative to do legal challenges. do you anticipate that or if this is for the public knowledge, it's a public hearing. that's why i asked st a fait accompli in that this is a fait accompli period. case closed on deal? or is this a fait potential litigation, which may challenge this bill? yeah it is potential litigation as all state laws are, and it

could be challengedn the courts that i know that there are also ongoing ballot measures, or at least there have been in to invalidate state housing law. and so there could likely beóç challenges to this. yes. i'm not aware of any, though. okay. thank you. commissioner eppler. thank you. since we are, you know, serving as a proxy for the publicht now. and, you know, i want to make sure that this is understandable know, we have a very technical term here for the which this applies. and those are designated housing development projects. can you more detail about about what that means? and you know,ma know, what is a designated housing development project for the purposes of this legislation? sure so it gets a bit complicated in the way that ab 1114 amended the government code section. that was codified under two, 234. so it actually the way is that it no longer just applies to that two thirds residential thresholvelopment project in 1114. references. another section that is quite broad. homes and up. it also includes transitional housing and other forms of housing, and so it is,

essentially any housect. a, that's a project that adds new housin correct? yes so that could be an adu, for example. i believe. although there are other laws that that adjust how adus are processed. right. but but this if this one is over the top and applies to all of them, then does it. is it the one that applies as opposed to those other laws, in ter of the appeal process? yes. okay thank you , thank you for the presentation, i have aion. i guess with respect to the data on would otherwise otherwise come before us, and it may be something that you would be able to extract or decode for me based on what's on page compliance data. but going to be any number of projects that would have otherwise been eligible to come before us thatwe're never going to see, and so i guess i'm trying to quantify the, the unseen there. can you

give us a @isense for, the before 1114 were eligible forá+ appeal to the board of appeals that are no longer volume that you've seen, this year? i'd be happy to talk to some of the data folks at dbi and try to figure out i don't have them off the top of my head. got it. thank yo i just want to add add to that, that i think that that it's great to see what that universe looks like. it would also be interesting. and maybe it's something that that we do internally to see how ma such projects have actually been appealed to us historically, in the past. thank you. commissioner zweig. up question so stimulated by commissioner eppler. so months ago where an been built in the mid-block open space, ition of an existing i guess it's a garden storage equipment, garden

storage structure. it certainly wasn't a residential structure. and ac the new state statutes related to adus it was had set back far enouom the building. sorry. the property lines, it only went up n number of feet. it only had a it was all congure perfectly according to the new state law. what about that and my bother didn't stop it from getting past and going forward, was that it comple mid-block open space tr objections and what might or might not have been good if under without that new passed related to adusain the, the

problem with legislation like, as i see it i don't speak for my fellow is broaushed. it take into consideration the difference between the neighborhoods, the district or anything. the seven hills of francisco, what is flat, what is, what has height? none of it's broad brush and generic. and i really don't like broad brush4 tell, but we have lots of stuff on the books. dbi planning. that that exists, that is there to protect the neighborhoods, that is there to protect mid-block open space. that's just a couple examples. it goes on ad infinitum. does this legislation completely wipe out everything that to san francisco with regard to not its special nature but but it's a special r issues. how far does this this go. because that those special compliance issues, those special those individual regulations

provide the opportunity for the citizens who, by the way, we our big bucks up here, where where is that? you know, where doesw does that fit in? where does the you can't as i, the you can't make appeals anymore direction. how far does that go. and how far does t overrule? rules and regulations that that that previously stood in dbi. and i useshat now sits in the middle of that beautiful mid-block openen allowed before. so it sounds like what occurred there was legal because of the state. adu. exactly. and sodoes not affect any. i understand, but i'm using the state adu l5q as an example where that just came in and obliterated something like the mid-block open space. okay. and so what does this state, does this statute act the same. and simpl in the city of san francisco? no, dbi still is enforcing the building code and all the san

francisco amendmts that apply to that. the planning code still applies. this is simply saying that we need to respond within a specified amount of time. we are allowed to respond within that time and smeet the standards that we have in this city. okay? it is simply a non appealability once permit has been granted but that that permit still has to meet all health and safety, planning. it has to meet all existing regulations and requirements. so the, the, the public is taking it now has leap of faith that dbi is going to be diligent in in looking at all of those statutes, all of that, all of those compliance requirements. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. and once they say, they've gone down that checkler, then it is absolutely not appealable. whereabody could say, yeah, i know dbi you said that you did that, but we don't believe that you did. and therefore we're(ú going to make an appeal. is that basically the difference? i'm not sure if i'm foowing. exactly. so you're telling me that now dbi has a specific amount of time to go down the checklist to

and it's a shorter period of time, they to go down that checklist to make sure that everything is compliant, everything is, is, considers allq0 of the multitude of restrictions that that or opportunities. i'll looks half full that making a building they go down that checklist chec that permit is not appealable. correct following you. correct. right. where in the past the different difference is, is they may have done that in the past. and then somebody a citizen nextc?do we don't agree with you. we're going to they come marching into here, we have a hearing and was correct or not. citizen making the appeal has paid their howe an appeal. $650. 175 for one permit bargain. so they paid the $175. they g their hearing. we told

them whether it was a good bad appeal, and we all have a nice day, but that anymore. yes, that process has changed. thank you. thank you. i. one is directed to you, which is thank you for as commissioner swig said it was concise. it was accompanying the city attorney's memo. it was very, very helpful appreciate that, the rest of my commen my colleagues and to president lopez, and that is kind of discussion for the for the aid of our own board and for the public should have occurredu prior to the while this bill was being considered. and i know you you i'm not it's not your call to do, to do, to do that. but rights. our charter has been chopped uon with the what we as san franciscop said, was part of our law, part of the expectation on

discretionary not discretionary matters no longer exists because of this law. it. so it is the law. i'm not trying to challenge it. i'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but it is the law. there is now the post or the or the implement implementing of and following abiding bye have to do it. the city has to do it. but it's impor this board as a stakeholder to be ablee this is moving on. if other departments know if city family or city agencies know that we sh as well. and i and i look to president lopez to see where we getting this kind of information in advance, whether this legislature is going to be gone at the end of at the looking forward to 24, 25, rather, 2526 to see how of legislative matters that affect the very, the very work that we do. but also the rights andh interests of members of the public. now we see the acrimony, we see t concern. we see the lack of communication among now they have a place to come to, which

is to the board oappeals. they can make an appeal. a third party can make. we make a decision. and ideally, neighbors away with a decision from someone. they're not. they do not have that under this law. they've got they've got oftentimes with with resentments built up by something one neighbor did or the other neighbor didn't do. and wes sort of an escape hatch and a letting off steam, making a decision that's no longer available. so i think the public is at least for that aspect of it, is not well served i said, i'm not going to talk about i'm not i'm trying good law or not, but i do want to that we have the opportunity and knowledge about laws that affect what we do.her city departments that analyze legislation of president lopez coul look into that over the next few months. i personally would appreci. i think that's a fair i think with, with respect to 1114, you know that was that was in in

flight, you know, long before i was in this the, with respect to our guests, i think, i think it would be conversation going with respect to, you know, if, if you're open to it to sharing some of that infoqv2rmation with respect to matters that may impact, you know, threshold questions about what may or may not ber appeal, and so i'd love to keep that communication ope and ongoing. i think we may, i mean, i'll take it. i'll take it in and, and think about this more. i may also make sense to have a conversation about, because, our dbi, and there are other departments that, that, that, that send matters to thisit may, it may make sense to have a broader conversation and, and have an

analogous conversation with representatives from other other departments and agencies but i think that's the, the, the, the, theion that i'm sensing, you know, at the prospect of particular not be following developments in sacramento as closely as some of us in this room, you know, being faced with the prospect of no longer being able to do something that they may have done before in the past, that they may have understood was still an avenue for relief. that is no longer the case, given changes in. i think that that's that's a very valid point. and, you know we can we cif there are any, official actions, whether they be communications or otherwise, to be taken by this board. but i do think that that, that conversation begins with an

understanding and assessment of, may impact what comes in the door, so yeah in touch about that. absolutely thank you. i don't see any further questions at this time public comment. thank you so much for your time. appreciate it. oving on to public comment. miss trish welcome. hi. thank you. miss$v rosenberg. hi george, i sent you i sent the letter i think i people know what's going on, what this means. and iink it's very important that there be real concrete examples that people understand what this actually means. other where the transfer from site permit to post entitlement permit. it's very confusing and +" i've read those memos from the city attorney several times. the one 423, which is linked to 114 a thing i didn't say in my letter is that there'kx)s no more de novo

hearings. that's what this board no more de novo hearings. so what happens if the city make error when they grant an entitlement nothing. some other thoughts. you use the word discretion tonight several times. there's no more appeals to this board, including permits to legalize÷# work, post enforcement. is that truese permits that were here for what's going to happen withhat, there are no appeals related to issues of foundations or excavations or decks or expansions into rear yards. what it's mentions in 114 is obj are being developed. should this board have a role in developing objective design standards? they're still being developed going to be reviewed by staff. the public has no that. i think the board should maybe objective design standards. with sb 423, there's a huge loophole there because projects with two or more units just go right through. but i've seen, like you

saw last week, that that was 363 jersey there was no seen that happen. now all the time. the of the whole unit and they have avoided they'll avoid any kind of public notification, let alone input. there's pre-application meetingse still allowed throughout the city. are they? i don't know what about 311 notifications pegs? no more 311 notifications. how do people know what's going on? who's going to let them knowething's built? i don't think that's what the city or the charter, you know it's just thrown out the window. it's all thrown out the window. i know it's all happened, but i don't think people about it enough. and i hope that the board lets people know. i hope this hearing lets people know. i hope there are more hearings about it, ie one more question. can can doctor even still be filed if the planning entitlement hasn't been issued as long as it's under review. could someone still file a doctor? thank you. that's not

made clear to me. i don't know, thank you. i have more questions. i'myou have them too. but it would be nice to have some concrete examples. thank you. okay. thzdank you. we are now turning to zoom for public comment. the calling go ahead. you may need to d. we have someone who called in the. dial star six. okay. yes you unmuted yourself. please go ahead. it's sue hester. i request. i've listened t comments by the board members. they are very good. they are really probing about what you're used to doing as a board of appeals member and the to you, the appeals that come to you all the time. basically this whole hearing is in the m summer when there is no one. board of supervisors is on vacation, planning commissioner is on . i am struggling rightv)e information,

the limited information that was provided to you in the past week to understand the magnitude of what you're being out i don't understand how many hearings will still be at the board of appeals. my; estimate is your workload is going to commission's workload is going to shrink. that is very like me is that the +y planning commission won't have a lot of hearings, and the board of appeals won't have a lot of hearings. and no one knows about it should have a hearing on what happening with this law, as well as you all to this is an informational hearing. this is not a decision you have to make today. please have a full hearing after labor

day when people are paying attention and can be informed. people from neighborhoods people from community groups that build housing that build what's going on. as well as members of the board of supervisors and the planning commission. so i'm asking you and there was, one of the things u yo about today is the memo that came from ossining on 11 823. and it was a memo addressing this legislation. and i don't think there was a hearing at the board of wasn't in your packet, 30s. it wasn't in packet at all. so these dig down deeply in the questionou asked and have real public comment and advertised hearing that is more than insiders knowbout planning commissionw should have information on when you're going

to have commission is going to have a hearing, because thank you. that's time has been developed as thank you. thank you, miss. thank you, miss hester. is there any further public comment on this item? i don't see any. solopez, anything further, that does it for this evend. and thank you to the planning and building departments for being here today.-d>kj7

[music] home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you bike walk take public transit or shares mobility you are for a free and safe roadway home the city reimburse you up to 50 dlrs in an event of an emergency. to learn more how to submit a reimbursement visitsferh. >> here is wall hardware, 3500 square feet of retail space. we carry thousand items in here and countingfelt it never stops because i have a thing. when a customer says, do you have this and i it bothers

me. i won't have it. so,of those things owning a hardware store, people expect you to have everything and you try to if full thill fulfill that need. native san franciscan. born in chinatown, same as bruce lee, chinatown hospital. in the late 70's, so my mom and dad thought, construction, why don't we open a hardware store? it is that is how that got started. we started this store in 1983, and we have been going every since, so now it is 40 years. i like seborhood. i fealt a hardware store is different from other businesses. most businesses you want to buy this or that and eat this or that. a hardware store is different. people come in and usually have a for you to navigate them through that problem and offer them that help them get to where they need to go. the people are great. i love this neighborhood. there is differentetnisties and cultures here.

we all intermingle and mix get along fine and i like that about place to be. it is near the beach and beautiful and near the zoom and park and stern grove. great schools and parks. what's twl not to like? i am always looks around the corner the next thing to and crank it up more and make it safer and more enjoyable. bringing in new businesses. support them. , open 7 days a week, monday-fri6, saturday is 10 to 6 and sunday is 10 to 3. >> hi, i'm emmy the emmy's spaghetti i offers that with some kind of fine and

feeling and in the 90s in san francisco it was pretty pretensee a restaurant in the restaurant scene have a place to have a place to guess i started th a no better place the outer mission spaces were available that's when i opt in two 10 he start with all people an work with them and the events they create5 one of the events we do backpaiv give piaget away and at with a santa and bring 5 hundred meatballs and pa get and we're in the mission not about them knowingd comes from but a part of theity. and

my restaurant emmy's spaghetti and fun banquet and&i san francisco not the thing that everybody knows about we stay under the radar we show the showcase i take it food and we started to eat we comfort food and that claims friend from i take it and helped me create meatballs evolved over the years in the ginng one plate of spaghetti and a meatball wemake the portions as big as they could be. and now we have quite types pasta dishes with a la begin sauce or have a partition to a lot of food we are at a point with a=!ll the

favorites i don't change the menu often 0 i eat here so much but ev fresh your cocktail menu is ever been one thing on the menu our magazine ghetto we change the flavor one of the fun things it is served in the historically we're known emmy's spaghetti as a friendly place and when i oped i wanted my friend to be welcome and other parents to becomed and it is very for this is a place f san francisco and this is where hold their celebration important i mean you're coming to aamily restaurant and you're coming for o to a fun place i love being the owner and pretty sure my life i enjoy the psta spaghetti place i hope to be we'll

see how it go a friend we're hoping you'll . >> (music). >> the ferry building one of san francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters

pass through that each gay. >> one of th that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how youngqx city we are. and nothing is really h before the gold rush. there was a small spanish in the presiding a were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san then the gold rush en 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life. >> by 1850 16 thousand ships in the bay and l town in search of gold leaving( their

ships behind so they scraped in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when t a map of san francisco have a unique street(ó grid and one of the thing is those started off in extremely long piers. but by 1875 they know more so the ferry building was4 built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the ferry building and picking up and goods and then last night the street light cars the to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bondú for $600,000. to

build a new ferry building 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san franciscoght that was a grand ferry building had a compe to hire an architecture and choose a young aspiringnd in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so proposed the beautiful new building i wanted itwider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the of concrete quitclaim two and was not completed and killed. but it greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to

hospitals up to nob hill and the fisherman's ú area. then the earthquake hit in 190 six t ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected the facade of the tower. and 80 percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during after the actuate tried to stop the maskire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess torn up and really really wanted to popular sense they were on top of that but two

weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run nol on the cable track ran electrical wires to to run and 2 was$fj controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gavehow how electrical s and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in50 and people didn't realize how much of a communitry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever was a war like the filipino war or world

had a parade on market street and the and to give you an gk idea how central to the citywide that is brown wanted to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay busiest translation place in the around transit and the city is dependent on t in 1915 of an important year that was the our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after thethquake and 22 different alamed and one had the and 80 trip of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had

mask mandates and caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever and san francisco was hit hard by the places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pes off their masks and getting from so two would be hauled >> the way the ferry building was originally built lower level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was wher-#e passengers offloaded and all would spill out and central stairway of the is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major

stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the the embarcadero on market street was in and in but within 20 years to have later shipbuilding portd and the pacific we need the that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. were a popular item that people themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was the ferry that was a novelty rather than a

transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lowero that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped havingpurpose. >> what happened in the 40 50's because of this trying to find a purpose axm of proposals for a world trade center anda the phillyn a idea objective never gotten down

tween that was a part of ferry building andimpractical. after tower administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. so they had an plan the plan for major f throughout san francisco. and so came up with the bay bridge and worked along embarcadero. plans were to be very, very efficient for tha through town he once the san francisco s had human services agency happening 200 though people city hall offender that the

embarcadero free was we had the great free to where. which cut us off from the ferry building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the and that was the ferry building. >> that land was developed for a new ferry building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didn't want- that was plan was developed for the liquor store. >> the s many that ups and downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing

and after the earthquake had a shove adrenaline to waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the and feel that by making a relia f ferry building will be there to surface. >>

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents do their business in the 49 square of san francisco. wein unique, successful and right you shop and dine in the 49?hree owners here in san francisco and we provide we have food the type of food that we have a food and it's not a big menu but we dide. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for l brings families together and if we can bring that family to business you're gold. tonight we have russelling for wrestle community.

>> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a!n full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended wrestling hereñ[ puoillo del mar. we're hop get families to join us. we've done a queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's little shop that all of the kids like tong at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for ferment drink repeat. it's garden district and four beautiful muellersmixer ura alsoezmurals.

>> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life if you will. local people spend their money at our businesses and those people will spend i hope people shop locally. [ ♪ ]ex