fell on my aunt's car, it broke the little side window, i replaced it, no big deal, but it could fall on a person. what am i going to do, you know. i need this tree to be removed so i'm asking to please allow me to remove this tree or if dpw claims that it's so healthy, why don't they take it back, you know, that way they can be happy and i can be happy. this is not a healthy tree. it was never healthy and it's just wrong just because they say, we don't have money to maintain it, we're going to dump it on the property owner, that's just wrong, that's trampling over our rights, they should have thought about a better way to deal with this, it's not right. i don't have the finances to maintain a tree, this needs to be pruned constantly. when it was city maintained, i used to call. sometimes they would come and prune it, sometimes they wouldn't, so it's really unfair for them to expect

property owners when we have so much expenses as it is, property taxes, if anything goes wrong with the house, it's on us, and now a tree that wasn't my tree, it was a city maintained tree, so i'm asking that you please allow me to remove it and if not, take it back. i don't want this tree, and another thing, it said here remove one privately maintained street tree with replacement of one tree, and i never requested a replacement tree. i don't want a tree, i don't want anything that deals with maintaining. i have enough on my plate, i cannot -- i cannot take upon this, so i'm asking to please reconsider this. thank you. >> are you finished? >> so, if they take it back, you're okay with that? >> i would be fine if they take it back, they can maintain it, but like i said, the tree's already raising the sidewalk and that's

going to fall on to me and that's why i'm asking -- >> the reason why commissioner fung said that, partly why we were at the board of supervisors for so many hours is the 11 supervisors passed a resolution to go on the ballot that the city take back all the trees back and the only condition they're dealing with is the funding on how that's going to accomplish. >> oh, i was not aware of that. >> it was just yesterday. >> oh, okay, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. buck? >> were you there yesterday, mr. buck? >> good evening, i was watching yesterday's hearing from my office on sf gov tv and i got chills when supervisor wiener asked all the supers to stand in favor and they fanned back and literally the entire gallery stood, so the board of

supervisors showing some great leadership we've been waiting for for som decades, but again just to step back, my name is buck, i'm the urban forester, bureau of urban forestry, i value the feedback from the appellant regarding the tree maintenance concerns she has adjacent to her property and i'll provide some general background information and we'll kind of come back to some of that latest developments, because i think nas germane in this case, so there are two trees adjacent to the property that were the responsibility for public works to maintain, tree number 2, the tree on the left was transferred to the property owner last year in august. if i could have overhead. so, the subject tree we're talking about this evening is here on the left. these are new zealand christmas trees and they are evergreen specie and is we've had similar cases before us

at your appeals board here with sidewalk damage caused by this species. both trees were planted with friends of the urban forest on june 25, 1994, they would do so with a property owner's permission, they would water the trees for the first three year and is would revert to be maintained by public works because we always maintained strobes along silver avenue, i looked at how did the two trees get on this site, that may have been nrant planted with a previous property owner, i don't know, regarding the condition of the tree, the vigor is good, the overall tree health is good. tree number 1 has not been transfer today the property owner because we have outstanding sidewalk repairs to be made. on tree number 1, there are a few examples of where large limbs have broken off that tree. i didn't see anything obvious with the subject tree in terms of history of branch

failure. this is a slight lean to the tree, generally the tree has adequate clearance away from the building overhead, there's an image from one angle and another image from a different vantage point. regarding the sidewalk damage, there is starting to be a new round of sidewalk damage caused by the roots of the tree in this area. a year ago when we initiated the transfer of the tree, na damage was not present so it's something that has been occurring since transfer of just a year ago. related to the sewer issues in this image, here is the sewer clean-out, the sewer lateral. the sewer issue is complicated. basically what we say is that tree roots don't damage sewers but they make existing damage much worse. it typically takes the sewer line to be leaking or have some crack or defect with it for it to be leaking for

tree roots to exacerbate the situation, so one important thing to point out, even if we're able to maintain all of the trees in this city, that will not include liability for sewer repair. it would include tree pruning, major maintenance prune trimming sidewalk repair, we're one of the few cities in the country who are rebim ushering people for sewer related damages, so a few years ago, public works stopped that practice. when a sewer line has been upgraded, we hope it will last a long time, that's one bit of encouraging news to offer the property owner, if that upgrade was made six years ago and ten thousand dollars was reimbursed by the city, we've had hundreds of property owners approaching us to look for the same treaask

that the board uphold the director's denial of the permit to remove the tree and we offer up to the property owner that we really hope this initiative would pass. it would be a really

exciting turn of events for san francisco's urban forest and i keep telling people all year, i know there's a huge national election going on, but it's the year of the tree in san francisco and yesterday's vote was a huge step towards that. thank you. >> as long as they can figure out where the money comes from, i think that's going to be the problem. mr. buck, are you finished sir? >> yes. >> looking at the pictures, this tree doesn't look that healthy, usually when you say the tree looks good, are we looking at the same pictures because it looks like it's split, it looks like you can see where failed limbs have come off. i mean, you look at the base, i mean, normally when you say a tree looks pretty good, i'm in agreement, but this tree doesn't look very good. >> thank you, you know, i think the tree looks very good, so the structure of the tree, the one -- if we're

going to -- which we like to do, split hairs over tree struck khu, it has co-dominant stems so it has two co-dominant stems, but it's more of a u-shape, so the crotch or branching structure iss more of a u shape, when we have a v shape, we have the two stems physically groining apart from each other, that's where we see failures, co-dominant are not good, [inaudible] they are planted a little close together, they're only 12 feet on center, and if we were to plant these trees today, we would want at least 20 feet on center with the species. however, with the larger tree, tree number 1, if in tree is approved for removal, we really wouldn't replant this tree because it's very close to the existing tree, and it's going to be out

shaded, so at the doesn'tbacker current moment, we have two trees planted on the same day, they co-exist together, there's a slight lean, but these trees will fill out over time and again just to reiterate, i think the trees look very healthy. >> we're talking about the tree on the left, aren't we? >> the tree on the left. >> you said that you saw some evidence of branches coming off. do you have any concerns about that? >> not really. tree number 1, the tree that's not the subject of the hearing this evening that is currently maintained by public works, that tree has lost a couple of large branch, it's not clear if that -- i think one of them could have been caused by a lack of automobile clearance, it could have been struck by a truck and sometimes that forces a limb off. the other one was a little bit more towards the interior, likely not caused by a truck, the species is pretty well behavior when it comes to limb structure and

branch failures. >> and you said that if this were done today, they would not be that close together, right? >> they would not, and i do want to acknowledge that. the trees -- i was wondering, why 12 feet, right, why no neighbors on either side have any trees and then you have a neighbor who has two trees, and that's the way the urban forest has been for years, it's sort of lack of equity and distribution. it's very possible that the owner was very excited when they planted these trees to frame and frank -- blank the entrance of the home, there's another neighbor that would convince us to get another tree planted to match the location of where the other one was, these are things that we're dealing with all the time, people want to remove traoes all the time for a number of different reasons. >> do you have any idea o on the sewer repair, what was done, did they replace it with cast iron? >> i don't know the specifics of the sewer repair, but if

it was involving the city, it's either cast iron or if they have to go in between buildings, they might do the sleeveless liner to avoid excavating near the foundation. my sense though, the repair probably just went down into the -- that lower area, i don't know if that's a driveway, it's not a driveway but there's a slope downwards, so my sense is that it was likely cast iron. >> and probably it was terracotta prior and the building construction looks like early 1900's. >> so, you're saying it was replacement, not necessarily just a repair job? >> typically it would be replaced entirely. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

okay, seeing no public comment, then we have rebuttal from the appellant, if you have anything further to say, you have three additional minutes. >> one thing he mentioned about there being two trees. i believe i was very young, but i remember it was the city offer, they were planting trees, and i remember somebody coming and talking to my aunt about planting two trees so it wasn't her request at all. it was done by dpw, someone from the city that was offering them because she didn't know anything about it. that's the one thing i remember about it, but she never requested it, they asked if she would like to get them plant and had she said yes, but she never said she wanted two, they offered them and that's about it.

>> so, you believe they near the property since the trees were put in? >> i live there, that's where i grew up. the plumbing, that was by your plumber and you requested a rebim busmen from the city? >> yes, it was a plumber, when it broke about six years ago, i was no longer living there. >> so, you don't know the circumstances of what it was replaced by? >> no, that i do not know but he did go down into that lower area. >> okay, thank you. >> ms., do you understand wla the proposed ordinance is? >> come back to the microphone if you would, what mr. buck stated was that the proposed ballot initiative which would then create a new law is that dpw will take back the maintenance and

care of the trees, and if there's any damage to the sidewalk, it would be their responsibility, but any damage to a sewer line is not under the city's -- >> what if it's caused again by the tree roots because from the last time, the one thing i remember is there was a camera and you could clearly see that tree roots -- >> understood, i know that's the process they go through. the question i'm raising to you is that do you still want to request the demolition of this tree if you knew that there's a chance the city may take over maintenance but they would not take care of future sewer damage? >> if they would -- my concern is that i hope they can figure out where the money's going to come from and what if something happens before then? that would be my concern,

you know. and i understand, but the problem is that the roots, whenever the sidewalk starts raising, the roots are growing, i'm just concerned. >> they would take care of any damage to the sidewalk is what i heard from buf, and you're right, i mean, there's a question of whether it's goinbacker going to be funded or not or if people will pass it. >> yes. i mean, it would be really hard for me financially if it happens again, i mean, i would prefer to get the tree removed. it's not a healthy tree honestly. >> how aboif we continue this until after the election in november? >> if it becomes a city maintained tree and i don't know if they can figure out, if they have the technology to figure out ways to prevent the roots from growing, if there's something they can

do about it, i don't know, i just want to prevent my main drain from getting, you know, broken again. that's the other thing. >> well, if they put in cast iron, you have a much better chance of it lasting for a long time. >> i'm not sure what they put in to be honest with you. >> okay. >> mr. buck, anything further? >> thank you, commissioners, chris buck with public works, bureau of urban forestry. i do believe that it would be likely cast iron that gets installed and in termser of the process, we used to work close ri with the city attorney's office in the claims department, we would go out and confirm, physically go out, look at the tree, look at where their sewer line is, review the scoping footage in their camera to say this is the only tree around, it's ours to maintain, and then the

sewer line going directly into the home and not between the homes leads me to believe that it could only be cast iron, you could only get the exemption of that liner when it's between homes and to excavate near a neighbor's location. we are hopeful and optimistic that the initiative would be -- it's definitely got to be earmarked funding. the other proposal was for a parcel tax and it was trending at about 70% of support for that, so this would be instead of a two-thirds majority, it would be a -- not two-thirds, it would be a simple majority and it would be money that comes from the general fund which still has to be identified, but we are of course once that ballot gets placed on the election, we can't advocate for it, but at this point, we can provide information about what's at stake, and in terms of long term maintenance of the tree, if we can do overhead, i did

find in our archives, we have a photo drive, there was a pruning request, we have pruned the tree and repaired the sidewalk at the site throughout the year, there was a comment earlier sometimes we come out and prune, sometimes we don't, because sometimes we come out and we find we don't need to prune so we don't send the tree crew out there, that is consistent with how we inspect and evaluate trees so we can continue to evaluate our tree number 1. this photo was taken in 2005, the request at that time, the photo is labeled pruning request, so in 2005, we went out, there is a pruning request for the trees but the trees don't require pruning so we do keep a lot of information about each tree in our database and one of the trees is currently our liability, the second tree is not, we hope both trees will become our liability in the near future. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> are we continuing? i wouldn't mind continuing, if it came to a vote, i would allow the tree and spacing 12 feet apart, it's a lot of tree for that small spacing personally. >> you know, it's not a very long time and perhaps -- >> continue it to when? >> we will continue it until sometime after november 8th. >> there is a meeting on the 9th, the 16th of november and then december 7th. >> let's go further, i don't think -- they indicated na the initial budget was somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 million which is not a small amount, so i would continue this to december 7th but i would say to the

appellant that, you know, in these limited number of months, it's not likely to be anything that's going to happen and perhaps you can rethink what she would like to be done following either passage or non-passage of the initiative. >> okay, so that's a motion from the vice-president to continue the appeal to december 7, 2016, and i believe that's to await the outcome of the related ballot measure. >> right. >> okay, on that motion, commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that motion does carry and this item is continued to december 7th. the next item on the calendar is item number 9, we've already heard item 8, so item 9 is appeal -- >> can we take a two minute break. >> okay, we're going to take

>> welcome back to the july 27, 2016 meeting to have scan fra*ns board of appeals, we are on item number 9, appeal number 16-084, brandon eberhart versus department ofing inspection, 1619a laguna street, appeal thing issuance on april 25, 2016 to mariya semika toe va of an al ration permit. we will salter with the appellant. you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good evening, members of the board, my name's sal va tor him can know, i represent the appellant, brandon eberhart, he's been a

residential tenant at the property since december 1, 2015. on april 25th, a permit was applied for and it's on the overhead. to remove kitchen cabinets and a sink. the permit is defective on its face because on 7a, it lists the current use as commercial, and page 2 of that permit indicates to me that it wasn't reviewed by planning, and my understanding is if you want to remove items from an in-law unit or unpermitted residential unit, it should be reviewed by planning, and this was not. mr. eberhart rented the unit partially furnished, had a bed in it. it was rented to him

residentially. we have a copy of the first page of the residential lease and up at the top, it shows residential month to month, it was an initial six month term and then month to month after that. after the permit -- well, before i talk about -- alright, so at the top there, it shows residential lease, that's the lease he signed in december, 2015 and moved in residentially. here's a layout of the unit. it shows the bathroom, the kitchen, the living area and the entryway. i also have some photos of how it's currently -- how it looks currently. there's the kitchen, this item here is the

refrigerator, there's a microwave on top, so here's the living room area or excuse me, bedroom area, there's the bed here. mr. eberhart does not work in this unit, doesn't do any business there, he just lives there. here's the bathroom. there's a sink and a mirror. here's another photograph of the bathroom, there's the toilet. shortly after the permit was applied for, he received a 30 day notice for termination of tenancy. now, in order to get one of these notices, you have to apply under the rent ordinance to demolish a residential unit. here the permit is to demolish cabinets or to remove cabinets and a sink in

a commercial unit, not cek for this type of notice. i believe that the landlord is using an improper permit application to seek to evict a residential tenant. i would like mr. eberhart to say a few words to the board now. >> hello, thank you for hearing this case. everything sal said is pretty much the truth on my end, i moved in december 1 and i've been there since then. i use it residentially, i knew the previous tenant which is how i found out about it, he was using it residentially, so yeah, i just want to keep staying there as a resident, i work in mountain view so i have an office 9-5, i don't paint or do anything in the unit for

business, yeah. any questions? >> your six month lease is up? >> yes, it's up and it's supposed to convert to month to month according to the lease i signed. >> okay, what is your current monthly rental price? >> 2600. >> thank you. >> my name is bob nelpi and i have been work witching the tenant and mr. sal. the unit, it's a residential unit, it aos got a kitchen, a full bath, an electric stove sxit's partially furnished and there's only one means in and out of the unit and it's in nice shape. they have a circuit breaker that serves other areas of

the building but basically it is a residential unit. thank you. >> excuse me, i didn't notice a window. is there a window? >> there is a window in the front and it's not openable. >> thanks. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, thank you, board, edward singer appearing for the permit holder. let me begin by assuring the board that there was no deception of the permit holder in applying for this permit, she was candid with the department of building inspections in regards to mr. eberhart wauz tenant when she applied for the permit. perhaps a brief history of her brief ownership to the building, my client bought

the building in december of 2014, the building is a former church in japan town which was legally converted into two uniters, the top one is a legal residential and the bottom port is a commercial unit, when she first bought the unit, she had a vision of legalizing this unit and went down to various governmental agencies, talked to them about it and was told she could not legally convert it. and downstairs there's two kind of separate office space and is the space that mr. eberhart currently resides is just one of those two spaces so resign today the fact she was going to have to use this as a commercial space, she made plans in the future to open like a jewelry store in the space mr. eberhart's in and use the backspaces as an office space. yes, and in order to earn some income between the time is that tha* she opened up this retail use, she did rent it to not only mr. eberhart

but a person before that. she put the kitchenette in there herself and she was wrong in doing it, at the time she entered into the lease with mr. eberhart, she made him aware of the fact she intended to change the -- to take the kitchenette out, ask that he leave and she use this portion of the space as a commercial space again, and that fact is why the lease is exactly for six months because she intended to use this commercial use half of the six months, so now moving forward, the permit holder went down to department of building inspections because mr. eberhart made it clear he was not going to leave to get the permit necessary to remove the kitchenette and convert it back to the legal commercial use. when she went down there, she explained to everybody exactly what she was doing, why she was going it, she

spent a week talking to various people at the department of building inspections including and meeting with patrick rear don and the issue came up, does this require some conditional authorization use, of course it was that threshold determination that that is not required where the department of building inspections determines that is not -- there's no feasible path to legalization, they said there was no feasible path to legalization, therefore, there's no conditional use exploration required and the specific reason they gave is that there's 0 evidence this has ever been used as a residential unit prior to december 1, 2013. i think that was the basis of the decision that she did not have to explore the conditional use and that was the basis of the condition that the permit was issued. that's our understanding, the history of how we got here today. i'm hoping the department of building inspections is here and they can verify that was

the process that was followed and i would ask that you uphold the permit. >> thank you. we can hear from the departments, mr. curin. >> good evening, bernie curin, department of building inspection. yes, it appears that this at some point was converted to a residential unit without the benefit of permitting. that being said, there is a mandate now that even illegal units cannot be removed per the mayor's office without going through planning first, and i think the way this was represented to the building department at the onset created some confusion so it was not routed through planning, so it's my opinion that this permit should be revoked. do you have any questions?

>> mr. curin, is this by definition a residential unit? >> if it was rented out -- >> in conformance with all of your codes? >> we haven't been in the unit, just the fact they have a non-operable window might constitute some flaws in the habitability of it, but that being said, per the mayor's statute, even if it's an illegally converted united, it cannot be pulled off the rent rules unless it goes through planning. >> illegally converted or illegally used? >> this was a commercial space, it didn't have a full kitchen and all of that before based on prior plans. so, at some point, it was converted without the benefit of permitting. >> and unfortunately, legislation changed in 2014 and now recently three months ago, so by the owner doing that, they put themselves ins jeopardy. >> they put themselves in jeopardy, you may have

gotten away from it before but nowadays you can't convert something illegally sa say i'm tired of renting it out and convert it back. >> interesting what planning has to say. >> anything else? >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, i concur with the findings of senior building inspector curin, the permit was inappropriately issued if it was not [inaudible] and it does seem to be the the intend of the property owner to no longer have this be a dwelling unit as amended on april 10th of this year, removal of an unauthorized unit does require conditional use authorization and the definition of unauthorized unit is fairly broad and would capture this, it means there's one or many more rooms within a building which is not used with the benefit of a building permit independent from residential units on the same property

independent means the space has independent access that does not require entering a residential unit on the property and there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. this does appear to meet those thresholds, they would require a conditional use authorization to remove -- there are processes as part of this where we would we view it, if it is impossible to legalize, that's something that is considered and they would not be subject to the process, but under the planning code, certainly there is a path forward. this is a neighborhood commercial district. there's one other dwelling unit in the building, i don't see any restrictions that would immediately preclude someone from legalizing this dwelling unit under the planning code, they may need to seek a variance from open space requirements, but under the unit legalization provisions which were enacted in 2014, we need to review that to see if they're eligible for that, that may allow them some additional

exceptions from those requirements but certainly it does appear that this was improperly approved and issued. there were only a few other permits on this property the most recent one being in 2009 relate tog the retail space did not show cooking facilities on that level, the permit they sought this time retained those cooking facilities but didn't legalize it in any way, so there's just i think outstanding issues here that needed to be addressed, a proper permit needs to be sought to either legalize the dwelling unit or seek to go through the process to remove the unauthorized dwelling unit and that's all. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> so, one, the chiu legislation that passed in october, 2014 for the potential legalization of units was a start, correct? >> yes. >> and then the new legislation that was recently passed, supervisor avalos

added a condition that if there is a habitable space that someone's in, your ear mandated to legalize, now, is that subject to chiu's same meaning that you have to have a lease one year prior or is this all new thing? >> it's different. so, under supervisor chiu's ordinance, that gave a path for units to legalize. subsequent to that, we -- we're seeing people come in to legalize units but we're seeing people remove illegal units and this board was one of the leading factors in ultimately legislation that requires notification for a removal of an illegal unit that became effective earlier this year. subsequent to that, there's now a requirement where you can't just remove an unauthorized unit, you have to go through the process to legalize it firstser it's trying to compel people to legalize first before they

remove an illegal unit. t second one is if this is now deemed legal residential, does the property owner abandon the usage for the commercial space and is it going to require a change of usage to get it back to commercial space? >> to go back to a commercial space, they would need to go through the conditional use process to remove the unauthorized unit to restore the ground floor commercial use and that could be one of their arguments to the planning commission, it's at heart a ground floor commercial use and not appropriate to have as residential, that could be part of their proposal but they would need to get that authorization to revert it back to commercial, and it promotes ground floor retail uses, so that wouldn't be as much of an issue as the fact of removing the unauthorized unit at this point. >> o*blg, thank you. >> what about the underlying

planning constraint, density-wise? >> i don't believe density would be an issue in this case given that there's only one other dwelling unit on the property but that is all part of -- tla's why we need to review the permit too, that's why we need to review a permit to remove an illegal unit to make that determination whether or not there's a path to legalization. >> does ncd allow residential to ground floor? >> yes, yes. i mean, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we have rebuttal for the appellant, if you have anything further, three minutes. >> thank you very much, i have one point of clarification, mr. singer represented that my client was told by the landlord that the lease was 6 mothers because at the end of the 6

mother period, she was going to do something else with the property whether that discussion happened or not is irrelevant because in san francisco, any residential use that's under the jurisdiction of the rent board will not allow a tenancy to expire at the end of the term, it becomes perpetual month to month until the tenant decides to leave or until the tenant breeches the lease, neither of those two things happened here so that discussion whether it happened or not is irrelevant. any questions for me? thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. singer, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> just to speak to what he said, there was no discussion as the unit being converted back to commercial after 6 month, it just didn't happen, i wasn't expected that. the landlord called me two months before the lease was

up and asked if i intended to stay after that and i said yes, i think i have that in text form. >> it doesn't really matter here. >> i didn't know. >> i'm disappoint witched the building inspections per speption, the statute that discusses the need to go through conditional use specifically states and this is -- i don't think this has been amended, this is in section 317c4, the removal of an unauthorized unit does not require a conditional use authorization pursuant to the above section, if dbi has determined if there is no path for legalization under section 106 of the building code, and then 106a13, >> that was never determined. >> i'll take you one at a time. address your comment tos the board. >> with the permit holder discussed the very issue

that there was someone living there and whether or not this would need to go to conditional use, one of the questions that was asked is that is there any evidence that anyone used this as a resident radioprior to january, 2013, which is under 106a313 a-2 is one of the threshold criteria for legalization, because it was not used as a residential unit prior to to* that date, she had no evidence of it, she was told the permit would be granted without having to go through the conditional use process, again, there's a screening, if there's no path to legalization which she's now been told twice d first time after she bought the building and the second time when she applied to this perm, there's no path to legalization, there's no plan for it to go to planning, that's what she was told. >> are you aware that new legislation passed just two months ago?

>> i think -- my understanding of the -- you're talking about the alvarez lit gai, i thoublgtbacker thought that only applied to market street? >> any non-warranted property cannot be converted back, it ma to go through and attempt to be legalized, another thing is there a reason why you did not submit a brief? >> i did not submit a brief because they did not submit a brief. well, i parentally this was set for an earlier date. they agreed and then i started getting e-mails saying were you allowed to a late briefing, i was in the middle of a trial and couldn't respond and then no one submitted a brief, that's why we're here apparently with no briefs. >> anything further, mr. curan. >> step on up.

>> i don't see where there was ever any evidence of this path to legalizing it, you know, it sounds like except for an inoperable window, it may not have been too big a hurdle to legalize this unit. >> in termser of the building department? >> yes, sir, strictly, that's all i can speak on. >> understood. >> any other questions? >> [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, briefly, just to reiterate, this permit simply was not properly review and had approved and there is no evidence that the department building inspection has made a determination there is no path to legalization, no path to legalization doesn't mean that you need an inoperable window and there's no path because there's no operable window, under our legislation, there has to be something that's unreasonable, an unreasonable amount of work to be done to legalize the unit and there's been in evidence by the permit holder to demonstrate

this needs to go through the appropriate review process and properly documented. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm in agreement with what the department said, nothing has been presented to us that would allow us to make a determination that any of the criteria have been met or not met, so at this point in time, we're faced with a very clear legislation that specifies certain things. >> i agree, unfortunately, it's bad timing on the property owner that this legislation passed but there is as commissioner -- vice-president fung recognized, there is clear legislation that says we cannot issue this permit. er >> i'll move to grant the

appeal and request revocation of the permit on the basis that was improperly reviewed issued. >> okay, thank you, there's a motion from the vice-president to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis it was improperly review and had issued, on that motion, commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that carry widths a vote of 4-0. our last item is item 10, appeal number 16-098, california hotel & restaurant versus zoning administrator. 653 harrison street, appeal thing issuance on april 29, 2016 of a notice of violation and penalty. we will start with the appellant.

>> i have to disclose that i have had past dealings with [inaudible] those dealings have no impact on my ability to make a fair decision on this. >> thank you. >> good evening, president honda, commissioners, ilene dick, we're appealing the notice of violation, the nov was the culmination of an 8 month process precipitated of the filing of a building application for a wall sign on june 1, 2015 by the tenant, terminal inc., an nov here is not warranted, the issuance of the nov is not supported by the fact ins the regard and reflects an interpretation of the planning sxoed the 2014dpr moratorium adopted by the board of supervisors, we

urge you to grant the appeal and revoke the nov, to be clear, there was no pdr use in the building at the time the moratorium became effective on october 9, 2014. at that time, the building which is what terminal occupy and is what's before you in terms of the nov,, the remainder of the building being occupied for self-storage being occupied by the owner which has been a use that's been in place for 30 years. that front space was vacant the time the moratorium was adopted. prior to the moratorium, the front space had been occupy framed 1992 to 2014 by a series of building contractor, under the planning code in effect during those tenancies and at the time the moratorium was passed, those uses were designated as home and business services which was a permitted use in the m-1 zoning and not a pdr uses, the terminal tenancy began on march 1, 2015. it was not until the march,

2015 planning code revisions which was a wholesale over a wholesale redo of the planning code definition, the planning code was amended to reclassify the prior home and business use that is were in the building as pdr use, that change occurred after the effective date of the pdr moratorium and which on its face speaks clearly to the fact that what it was regulating and governing were pdr uses existing at the time of the enactment and it was put in place [inaudible]. this is exhibit c of the brief we provided at page 2 lines 12-14, this board intends to place a moratorium on changes to and replacements of pdr uses, at page 3, line 6-7, these

controls are intended and designed to deal with and ameliorate the problems and conditions associated to changes to and replacement of pdr uses. the phrase changes to and replacement of pdr uses is recited in both those provisions and it has meaning only if it apply tos pdr musings, consequently, for the nov to be properly issued, the va had to ignore the clear language of the moratorium that it applies to pdr uses existing at the time the moratorium became effective. the categorization of the uses in place the time the moratorium was in place. to reach its conclusion, the ca also had to fabricate an entirely new provision in terms of applying the planning code to retroactively change the use that is were previously there from a non-pdr use which didn't exist at the time pdr

into a pdr use just so the moratorium could apply. as you heard in previous hears, retro activity is rare and difficult to do, and this kind of bureaucrat initiated retroactive legislation needs the chaos an uncertainty in terms of administering the code and reasonable expectations that propertied owners can have. if we continue this, it would give the va [inaudible] it's unfair to property owners and ten mantises who could not have foreseen that a march, 2014 planning code change would alter the use of the building based on space that was previously vacate and had that use no longer existed, and the nov relies on building perms that does not [inaudible] that printing was present in the building from 1967 to 76, three building permits were issued in 1967,

1970 and 76, the 1967 and 1970 pert were for warehouse and storage use, the 1976 permit was aproved from planning to upgrade an existing office printing use. according to the nov, because the 19ed 67 and 76 permits were for the same applicant which is not true and would have no bearing on the outcome, the printing use approved by the 1976 permit must have been continuously in use since 1967, however, neither the 1967 or 1970 permits were approved by planning and neither of them could establish a legal use, the only conclusion that could be drawn is there was a printing use in the build ining 1976, not a continuous 9 year printing use, there was and that is consistent with the reverse phone directories showing printing uses in the build framing 1976 to 1977, the last time there was a pdr use in the building. as indicate ined our brief, the grounds relied on by the

decision were without factual support and do not support the conclusion that there is an existing pdr use, they exceed the limits of the va's reasonable discretion in interpreting the planning code, the explicit language to have moratorium with regard to protecting existing pdr uses and the classification of the building uses that were there prior to the terminal tenancy, if this is sustained the va would have free reign on flimsy evidence based on past and future codes, this does not provide a credible basis for such results. the consequences of upholding the nov would be the uncertainty of the building's legal use x the xhaj of identifying that use. given the lack of clear guidance from planning and the city's poor record keep and the lack of certainty would depress property sales and [inaudible] spaces for long periods, we urge the

board to grant the appeal and revoke the nov and we're happy to answer any questions. >> [inaudible]. your argument hinges on those uses within the timeframe you have spelled out that you say are not pdr. you provided some information on that but there is no physical information in terms of either photos or plans, so we can tell exactly whether if you have a designation as office/something, is that office a one cubicle. the names of these kinds of businesses that were in there doesn't lends itself to me to make a direct correlation as to xhaktly what they did.

>> i appreciate what you're saying, commissioner fung, there arebacker there were building contractors office ins there, there were not building permits pulled for those uses, so they just were continue wows rented to those spaces, but i guess in terms of the office use, or in terms of the front space, we did provide a photograph and there is -- it's a small area that 3500 front space, and getting to your question about the plans, as i recall from the nov, there were no plans for the 1976 permit, and the 1967 and 1970 permits, again, didn't have plans and neither of those were reviewed or approver by planning so those don't really establish a public use. >> so, it was the permit copy that is you provided that were available? >> that's correct, and again it's partly in response to the nov's findings, they refbacker referenced the 1967, 19ed 70 and 1976 permits as the basis for

concluding there had been a warehouse pdr use in the building and that's the last one we used so that's what we were trying to respond to. >> okay, and my question is similar, counselor, is that in your briefs, you indicate that there was a temporary printing in the year of 1976, correct? >> in 1976 to 1970. >> when you say a printing outfit a printing press in 1976, those things weighed 15 ton, i find it hard to believe a company is going to come in and spend that kind of infrastructure for a 12 month period. >> the basis for that information, the reverse phone directories, because often thyme when is the permits aren't clear, there's no plan history, you go to the reverse phone directories which are evidence that there was this act tift and by virtue of the names to have company that is were there at that time, we don't dispute it was printing but it was only for that two years, so

it was connecting that 19ed 76 permit -- >> and i saw the reverse as well, i'm just trying to weigh in, it's not like printers that we have today that take up a desk, these printers were like three cars. . er and that printing activity probably occur ined the rear space which is much more huge, it's a big warehouse space, again, that's the evidence we had because the permit history was incleat, it was based on the reverse phone directories. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. so, we have another enforcement matter relate today the illegal conversion of pdr space to an office use, this is not the first item that has been before you, it's similar in nay khu, it went be the last, this is something that is very important to the city, very serious matter we take in the

planning department and the planning commission and the board of supervisors. as with all these cases, the facts are always slily different and we evaluate each one properly, i believe in this case that the decision that is before you is extremely well written, i think extremely thorough, detailed and correct. i can say that i didn't write that, it was assistant m*ins rate teague who who this, this is an m-1 zoning district which does allow office use were it not sbr an interim moratorium that the board of supervisors adopted in september of 2014, initially a 45 day moratorium however extended to this year until october 9 of this year, it does prohibit the conversion of pdr space to other uses. then just going back through some of the facts here as they are if the appellant's brief. based upon their information, we can agree, we can all agree that the prior

occupant was building canting tor, a history of building contractors based upon the brief, the last use left there at the end of october of 2014 of the next tenant occupied a terminal, an officer use, occupied it in march of 2015. there's no building permit for this change of use, i mean, one of the is yus that we've debated hotly on other case that is have been before you, our permit history is showing office -- some history of office use, even if when we argue, there's an office to office, there's no permit to change it to office but at least there's some office to office rmit that the appellant usually grasps on, in this case, there is no such permit history, the most recent permits are from 2015 for sign that is were not issued, 2004 permit for sprinkler as the building as warehouse, prior to that, a wall sign, g*en, another permit for 96 for roofing,

for warehouse, retail sales in 1990, manufacturing in 1983, so there was no permit history here and had there been, the appellant would have presented this. the appellant's main contention is this should not be subject to the moratorium because trade and the contractor's office is not a pdr use, at least it wasn't at the time the control was adopted and that's incorrect, there are no facts to support that. the definition of pdr prior to the code reorganization that was referenced in 215 did very clearly and has always included home and business service uses and if i could have the overhead, please. the overhead, please, thank you. so, this section, prior to the code reorganization, these definitions were listed

in section 401, this is a copy of section 401 as it was adopted in 2010, pdr use, those uses contained in sections 222, 223, i'll stop there, so very clearly, this was a pdr use as of the date effective date of the controls, it was occupied by a pdr use, they left that space, no permit was sought to instill the new tenant, nor could one have been issued because of the interim control, the appellant also argues that somehow we have to -- you have to actively displace a tenant. i just don't think that is correct either. the last legal use is a pdr use. they are converting it to office use, maybe allowed under the zoning district but it's not allowed under the moratorium. they're very clearly in violation. some of the arguments the appellant puts forward would encourage illegal

conversions because you would say, right now the tenant in there is office, they didn't displace anyone because it's an office use now, it doesn't matter, there was no one that is being displaced by this. i don't see the arguments or the reasoning behind the appellant's statements there and i think this is a pretty clear-cut case, i don't think there was any abuse of discretion of reviewing this, i don't think there's any wild precedent that could be set here other than compliance with the code which i don't think is that wild at all, it's something we should be striving to achieve, so with that, i'll be available for any questions, i think this is very clearly a matter of illegal conversion to office space and i'll yield for questions. >> so, your point in reference to at least two previous cases that we have heard is that there was -- where the same subject came up is there was a history of

office use even though it wasn't exactly permitted for office use? >> that's been the argument of appellants is that there's a history of permits saying office to office, office to office, and those cases, our argument has been there's no permit to establish that office, if someone comes in with a permit that says the proposed use is office t existing use is office, that gets review and had approved without much review or consideration of the records, we're relying based upon what they put ton record as the existing legal use and those cases would have concerns because they're misrepresenting it, in this case, there's not a permit history of office. >> a question, mr. sanchez, so all of a sudden we're starting to see more and more of these. is there a reason or are you stepping up enforcement, if the law was two years ago,

why are they coming into play now? >> that's an excellent point, so we have received more complaints, there's been a dramatic increase in complaints in part because of the increase of pressure, so there's more increase in demand for the office space, more people are finding that it's more profitable to rent to office uses rather than pdr uses and part of it is also too our enforcement process takes time. the enforcement letters on this go back to last year and this was the result of the complaint that we received from the public. .ing and could you again just refresh our memory quickly of what enforcement entails at this point since we've gone through this process already, where you do guys go from now if there is a tenant currently occupy it is property and there's notice of violations, could you explain na? >> we would request the board uphold this position which would impose up to $220 a day and they would have to address this violation and take proper action to remove

the illegal use. >> thank you for explaining that. >> which in this case would mean -- >> pdr. >> which in this case would mean converting -- ridding the area of an office and moving back to a pdr use. >> it's simply abating the violation and no longer having an office use there, an active office use would address it but certainly we would like to see the space used in the future for pdr, it's my understanding there's a larger product here which she seek to demolish this and other build advising build a larger project up to a million feet of office space and seek that approval under the pending central soma legislation, but it's my understanding that application's on file for a much larger project here. >> it's across the street here? >> this is at --

>> [inaudible]. >> yeah. >> mr. sanchez, the central soma, have there been any drafts? >> it's been an ongoing process and we're currently going through the environmental review, it is still a work in process, there's been representations about -- well, in the faou khu, office will be allowed as a right. what they're discussing now is also some -- maintaining some pdr you wouldn't convert the entire billing but you would retain some of the existing pdr and this is addressing some o of the issues that have been raiseesed. >> has there anything been issue today the public sbe sides the eir? you know how rumors work, and i had heard that the central soma plant was going to have no pdr. >> there's definitely -- i can tell you we're talking

to staff would's working on, there is a lot of desire to have pdr replacement policy. nothing's final yet. anything can change until you get to the board of supervisors. >> is there a correlation then if that's coming out towards the last quarter of this year, is there a correlation then between these cases and i don't know if there are other ones coming up and potentially seeing how the legislation will fit in with these enforcement cases? >> we have enforcement cases throughout the city, so it's -- we're not seeing complaints just in central soma plant area. >> we won't go on a hypothetical, but let's go to the -- and i was trying to track the permits there and i don't remember seeing the 1980 permit and the 90 permit, but appellant's case in terms of the timeline,

you know, goes back to the 76 permit which their contention was reviewed by planning and therefore constitutes a change of use. >> so, the permit history indicate and the records of past tenants indicate as long history of industrial and pdr uses, so there is no historical evidence of this being as principally permitted office space as primary office space, i think the appellant may be arguing there's accessory office space in some of these uses but there ao noes clear evidence of principal office space nor has that been continued, the last use was a pdr use because it was a contractor's office. >> yes, it was beyond accessory, it was not totally office use but it was beyond accessory. >> but certainly the last use that we have in there, the

last tenant was -- >> i understand that. >> was contractors. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we will have rebuttal from -- >> there's no one from the public going to xhen on this? >> i don't know if there are compliant or others, we just have to ask. >> commissioners, [inaudible] dick from [inaudible] mar tele, this brief was addressing the notice of violation and the finagled and the analysis that was done by the planning department. the issue at hand here is there was a vacant space that was vacated d it was vacate the time the moratorium was adopt and had there was no history for the owners or the tenants to have determined what the last legal use was. the permit that is are referenced by planning that they want to give weight to particularly with saying that one of the last legal uses was warehouse were permits that weren't approved by

planning, again, that's classic one point of what you have to do to get a legal use determination which is it's reviewed and approved by planning and you've done it but again the -- at the nov makes it clear there was a pdr use based on 1976, 67 and 70 permits, we can see by reverse phone directory there were printing uses on there, there is no evidence other than the reverse phone directory how long those printing uses were there, so to try to insert some fairness into this, the idea that on the one hand you could look at permits that were issued 40 years ago for a use this was only there for less than five years and an owner nr the 21st century would be able to discern that and say, my goodness, we have a pdr use here under the moratorium, you can't have anything but a pdr use and conversely, you have the treatment of the home and business services, whether

they were pdr uses or not, that space was vacant, again, it seems to go against the grade against what the board of supervisors were trying to do with all due respect to the zoning administrator, what you use phrasing like existing uses and we are supposed to interpret legislation as plain language, that seems to suggest that it's more than a pdr use that may or may not have been there in 67 or 70 or even continues, we can see it by the reverse phone directory were there, that should not constitute a violation under the moratorium because then you have people who are going to be looking all over the place trying to get advice or guidance from building or planning and it's not going to be there. we dealt with this on brannan street earlier this month in perfect histories and property owners again aren't clear about what to do, most of them don't know, often get

bad advice and end up in a swailtion, here again, there was a reasonable belief that the prior business contracting offices were office use because that's the look and the outlay of the space that was used, there was no reason for them to believe that that was pdr use, so i would ask you the give some consideration to the fairness and equity of this and because it is an nov and it has some severe consequences. thank you. >> thank you. >> in your brief, you made the argument that the business services is not a pdr use, the za has indicated the deaf nation from 2010 indicates that it was, do you want to respond to that? >> i will, i looked at

section 401 to look tat definitions, it was replaced from section 402 in 2015, i couldn't find it, i tried the board of supervisors website, i couldn't find it, i tried, i thought i did thor -- thorough research, a change was made in 2013 to broaden the -- >> you indicated it was section 222. >> no, the section of the planning code that referenced that section 222 was section 401. >> and then -- but that was from 2010. your brief, i couldn't quite remember the date, indicates the definition of pdr changed in 2015. >> these were trade offices. >> and trade officers are therefore not a pdr use in that? >> no, in fact the office that the trade offices were pdr offices, the 2015

revision tos the planning code definitions reconstituted the scope of trade service and is said trade offices and said trade offices are pdr uses so that's what i was teaming on to and i respectfully -- zoning m*ins rate torx i could not find section 401 in that, but thank you, if you have any further questions, i'm happy to answer them. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, just on two points, first, so what happened last year was a code reorganization project, it was not substantive changes, what it did was try to consolidate definitions in one part of the planning code in section 102, so what happened, it's all part of the same ordinance, elements of section 401 were amended and were moved and sought to reference the new augmented

section 102, nas what happened. the 401 was still on the same piece of legislation, it's a large piece of legislation, hundreds of pages, i can understand the difficulty in finding it, the fact is it is there and that existed previous to that and it is very clear that home and business is a pdr use and going back to timing,backer, maybe i misunderstood the appellant and their description of it, i thought they had said at the time the moratorium took effect, the pdr use, the contractor's office as a pdr use, that had already been abandoned, even in their own brief, they do note on the first page, the moratorium was adopted by the board of supervisors on october 9, 2014 and on the next page towards the bottom, that they were vacated, the contractor's offices were vacated on october 31, 2015,

so they were vacated after the effective date of the moratorium, even if we do hear the appellant's argument that is it was concerned about use that is were active at that time and not preserving space, that is wonderful space for pdr users which i believe is is the intent, not just to preserve those businesses that were in operation at that time, i disagree with that interpretation of the moratorium, if we listen to that, their own statement of facts here doesn't support their claim, so i respectfully request that you uphold the thorough, well reasoned notice of violation penalty decision that is before you. thank you. >> so, i'm trying to frame this for myself, maybe you'll give me some help here. so, if there's a building, and let's call it a repair shop, and that would fit under pdr. >> right.

>> this building -- and the point i think the appellant's trying to make is if this building was empty for a long period of time and it just wasn't being used as a repair shop, then listen, i need space for an office, i'm just going to move into the repair shop, and your position is, even if it's empty for 15 year, it's still a space reserved for a repair shop because the intent of the district in which that repair shop is located is to have a balance of pdr and office and therefore we really have to -- much like we do with low-income housing, we have to sustain that low-income housing and not convert it to market rate housing because that preserves the integrity of the neighborhood. am i -- is that a good

analogy? >> yes, i think that's a good way of putting it. in this case, it's the question of the moratorium and i believe that even under the moratorium, if it is vacant pdr space, it doesn't mean you can just convert it to another use, i believe it's still covered under the moratorium and you'll be subject to the prohibition on conversion of that pdr space. >> because the intent of plan ising to maintain a business mix, a certain character and with that an integrity of a neighborhood. >> and these are interim controls that were initiated by the board of supervisors that were adopted but also signed by the mayor and extended. i mean, it was initially for 45 days and extended for a much longer period of time to address concerns that the board had and i believe this runs afoul of that control. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you know, based upon the last comments and discussions, i think the crucial point here is it's not so much whether an area that was pdr continues to be pdr, i think that's a given, i think the question the appellant is making is whether we buy into the idea that this particular building and its particular uses are not constrained by the moratorium in the sense that it is not -- was not during the period of time in that moratorium that it was a pdr use, and it's still a

little bit of a question mark in my mind. you know, i could see a couple of things that lend itself toward that argument but then there's -- it wasn't as compelling as some of the other things i've seen recently. >> myself, after going through the brief, i was leaning towards the office as i completed it and read it more thoroughly, i'm on the belief that it is pdr and that the department's nov was issued correctly. >> and that's exactly where i went. i was very pro-office, and then i considered a broader picture and i ended up where you did, mr. president.

>> anybody else want to weigh in? if someone could make a motion. >> do you have a motion? >> to deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not e r-r or abuse their discretion. >> thank you, so we have a motion from the president to deny the appeal and uphold the notice of violation and penalty on the basis that the zoning administrator did not e r-r or abuse his discretion, on that motion, vice-president fung? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye.

>> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> commissioner. >> that carries with a vote of 4 -0. there's no further business before the board tonight. ( meeting is adjourned ). >> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san

francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard.

touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are

interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks

who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new

experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers

together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪ good morning everyone. good morning. amanda-regional initiative for the gen. service administration pursue the claim

region and of your master of ceremonies today. i do the short straw and jake to the longshot. congratulations, jay. welcome to the united nations gaza. on to gsa regional headquarters and the physical home of super public. today, we celebrate the official launch of super public. the nation's first collaborative workspace to host city state and federal policymakers under one roof. the innovation lab is running in collaboration with san francisco mayor's office of civic innovation by the city intimate foundation and the gen. services administration will solve common problems that affect all levels of government. uc berkeley's center for design research at stanford university and mit media lab have also partnered with super public. super public will provide space. program convened summit, roundtables, and training programs to build

capacity so that all partners in the lab can maximize time and impact. by working in an open innovation environment, super public intends to create extorted exportable models and solutions facing governments throughout the nation. the city of san francisco and city intimate into gsa and other superpower concept, was an immediate, yes. each level of government is really reinventing the wheel around a common problems. the silo nature of government has stymied the public sector from adopting innovative tech, and business models, and the sharing of best practices. so our hope that super public will break down some of the silos and allow us to share common solutions across government at the city state and federal level. not only will gsa provide a physical space which we had quite a bit of, but we will also provide some expertise in certain areas. gsa is a leader in procurement and also digital services in our digital consultancy etf's house

just down the hall. minute you walk by their offices. just today. we've seen a significant amount of success at the federal level addressing the german challenges and changing the way government bills and buys technology. etf and parent organization the technology to information service can bring these past successes past and failures to the conversation. so, without further ado, we are very excited to commemorate the launch of super public and were honored to have with us another special guest. from you hear from the harsh reality recognizer speakers from today's event. gsa administrator denise turner ross, mayor of the city of san francisco and family. san francisco district 2 supervisor mark farrell. executive director of the city intimate foundation cameron sadik, and the city administrator naomi i

can name is not on your last name? kelly. thank you. in addition to our speakers today i like to recognizer panelists discussing women and government and technology early 21st-century government. gsa initiated denise ross we joined by codirector of the transportation sustainably resource center at uc berkeley. atf deputy executive director hillary hartley and city oakland chief resiliency officer karen jane. now my pleasure to introduce the speaker per today's event. i bus and head of gsa this denise turner ross. ms. ross is the 21st senate confirm administrative and general furnaces ministration brother 18 years of public service she's old there is a leadership positions in washington dc and greensboro north carolina the focus on driving economic impact in ms. state of change. it is a gentleman, denise ross. >>[applause] >> thank you very much into. thank you all for being here at

gsa in this beautiful old building. i think when we had the chance to actually renovate the space we were very fortunate and what a great day to see how far it's come. i'm not sure that when we were renovating the space just a few years ago that we had this opportunity and vision in mind but indeed, here we are today and it's just wonderful. mayor lee thank you for having us in your subject is a beautiful subject is been here all week and it's been a wonderful time. thank you for your partnership always. i think using the mayor has been called on frequented by the administration and it's because we like to go to leaders sought. it's not been by accident you've seen us here working with the mayor quite often. as administrative gsa, i have the pleasure of working with people are very committed to a really having a joint

effort when they come to any community could gsa manages over three 75,000,000 ft.2 of space. we manage over $50 with spending occurs through the federal government and has been a straighter and you pointed out, i do have a deep deep background in city administration as well as in other capacities that i care a lot about how we are partnering with community could because when i know him and were working together both at city state and federal level, as well as with the private sector and public sector, the we are at our best and that's when we achieve our best. so when i came in as administrator i prioritize how do we use our physical footprint on knowledge, our access all resources to partner with these partners. as well as to partner with the federal agencies of course. an idea is for us to be able to bring the best foot forward in any place were entered weaver wants to never call her economic initiative which is really about how do we take a footprint and look for

opportunities with communities. i think this is a great example of that. you are aware is into pointed out of our 18 f and pts and the work they been doing in digital services and current technology in bringing together that effort to our efforts and the federal government and it's been really exciting. so when asked about what is super public meeting for gsa why are we partnering in what respect to get out of this? i spoke to see us be able to continue to partner with other communities did for me this is just the start. to start an example and a strong example of what it means for how we can really leverage the space we are managing. this space the resources, the people be accessed. that's what is happening here. that is what were all part of today. so this is just a really exciting time for us throughout gsa not just the technology space but for all this that are here because were burning at the same time and will take these learning

and share with other communities as well. so, mayor thank you again for coming here. thank you and your team for having the vision as well as city innovates. i've just been excited getting to know the work that you're doing and vision you have not just your locally but international. what a wonderful thing. so thank you for coming here and thank you for choosing this partnership and thank you for having the vision. >>[applause] >> thank you, denise. our next speaker has incredibly strong track record of driving collaborative partnerships in the first mayor in the nation to create an innovation office and city governments. please, welcome mayor ed lee. >>[applause] >> thank you into for that introduction. gsa of instead of ross, thank you for being here. this is one my favorite buildings outside of city hall. it shouldn't surprise you that we share the same architect and it's one of the few buildings like my office that still has curbed the wars. so there's a lot of history that we share but being here in gsa again, connotes a lot of good

memories. certainly, it harkens back to city administrator these two director of purchasing a less political position in the city there i had fun. i truly had fun when i was director purchasing, spending the public's money about $1 billion a year buying things but trying to do it smartly and trying to incur local jobs, small businesses, get them involved in the economy of our city. and, even as mayor, we are still making sure were trying to do the right thing as all of our governments are. this idea of super public is exciting because in a few years, you're going to see an absolute necessity for this to happen. while it seems volunteer and innovative to do it now were actually creating the conditions the private sector, for the public sector, or academia, for those in government want to innovate, were trying to equate those

conditions now so it has a lot more opportunity to be successful. as a city of innovation, i want to say that were already working not just as a city but is the region, i'm already deep conversations with mayor schaaf and mayor ricardo with our supervisors, in san mateo county about regional issues and making sure were paying attention, more than just what the part on has for the immediate future. more about our challenges and how we can really work outside of our sideload cities and counties and into arena where we can really and truly invite the private sector to work with us. the academia sector and our innovative arms. it's no surprise that gsa is a partner because it's fast becoming the

most innovative arm of the federal government i've ever seen hit their really pushing it well ahead and they're challenging us to be a great partner and we want to be. because we have a lot of things that could withhold benefits to our public if we didn't start working cooperatively. we just are thinking outside of those silos that and you mentioned that we all know is a very fact that prevents us from doing better. and i say that we started this over a year and a half ago as well thinking that to be smarter city, not just an transportation but everything else that we do but transportation is a great example to start out with because if were not thinking more :-), not thinking more collaboratively and innovatively, beyond the cities and into a regional if not a state and federal approach, were going to fail. whether it's bikes, whether it's public transportation, whether it's getting less cars have thinking

about automated vehicles and how to make them safer, how to use them how to use automation and delivery of goods and products, were going to fill it we don't innovate now and have that spirit. that's why i'm excited about joining our gsa partners and our city administrator, our members of our board of supervisors, and our innovation arm of the ty working with the other innovation arms of federal government and state government. this is more than exciting. as i suggest to you super public is going to have to be a necessity because as you look around, not just united states, that's starting to happen in new york and los angeles and allow places, you look at what international cities are already doing. you don't have to look-has, by the way, happy the steel date those of you who have french foundations. paris story got a super public that we are studying and looking at as a model. toronto, under the great international city. other international cities have already figured out that indo

global competition that we are engaged in, and we must recognize that, that is those regions that recognize how collaboration and innovation is going to help their cities become that much more successful in a global competition. when not opting out of anything were opting in to a global setting and making sure we are ready to do that even better. so, i am excited as you can probably tell because i didn't, i visited the offices this year and the space that were talking about and i know into says we have not got the furniture yet. but, i will tell you, you got the calendar ready. furniture comes after the talent arrives. i think that talent is here the dedication the commitment is here and i will tell you, i

have never stopped trying to figure out how to decrease red tape. how to really convince our public who has to pay a lot of our taxes to say, your money is going into a smarter collaboration that we can be more transparent and telling them how we are cutting red tape. how small businesses can have a federal partner, a star partner, a local partner that says you're going to have a lot less red tape to be more successful. i have never stopped and effort in making sure that our city is talking with all our federal partners to it smarter and we better get how i say procurement officer as our city administrator is, to suggest that we can buy things and still have it at a less expensive price but get payments to our local small business faster so that we can really have a foundation for good employment in the long run. how we can tackle transportation, tackle homelessness, tackle poverty in

ways which we never talked about before. yes we've got good ideas in san francisco but the navigation centers, like a cherry, like car sharing. how can we make this a regional thing and academia, with its berkeley mit, stanford were all part of this effort, going to contribute to that because they know that we've got the document we got to talk the man could we do to make sure our models are examples of things we can really share with people, and we've got to prove that we can do it better than the last generated so, excited about this. i'm excited about super public, and i know just in the few years is quick to be an absolute necessity for the global competition and we are helping our country by doing this. we are hoping much of the federal people be better quit estate people be better on local people be better, but as a community of people interested in being smarter

about what were doing we hopefully will the public was a breathing that much deeper committed to using your dollars smarter to making sure we do things in language data can really drive and help us. this is what i think super public is and i want to just say, ken, thank you to organizations like the innovate fund and our innovation civic innovation leaders, i did sector comedies like at&t stepping up with berkeley folks and others to really say we can do this even better. but we've got to think regionally now. we can just think is that independent circuit either to make sure talking with sam ricardo and their interest in san jose. -mayor schaaf people in oakland and san mateo because our challenges are no longer just within our region with its housing, dissertation, with there's even a simple idea of procuring. we've got to do it smarter and better in this consistently foundation. it's exciting to be in a room full of innovators to do this. thank you very much. >>[applause]

>> thank you mayor lea. our next speaker is the event supervisor mark farrell. his work to communities which the digital divide. please, welcome supervisor farrell >> >>[applause] >> thanks everyone could post about is a tall our gsa partners, the winners always like this in san francisco. you come out for entire week. so please come out more often. i'm truly excited to be here today. from my perspective, super public is the future. it is what we need to be doing across all every single city in the united states. when we think about san francisco as much as we have a booming economy we have issues as cities have all the time. whether it is mayor lea mentioned, the housing crisis, we have transportation

issues, but they're not singled out for steve and cities across the united states are facing these issues. with the homelessness were bridging the digital divide these are issues we need to work in san francisco that matter to our residents. doing it alone in the government is something that is not going to be part of the future could need to partner with a private sector. need to partner with academia specialist visit here in san francisco today the innovation capital of the world and thank you to all our private sector partners will contribute to make this happen today. partnering with you partnering with academic, this is the future. we need to do it together because i will tell you, we cannot do it alone and several also city hall. we certainly cannot do it set up chambers of the board of supervisors we need to do it together as partners. binders and with the federal government or state government together we can do it. we also need our private sector. we need academia to be able to do it together. so i'm incredibly excited to be part of this.

take you to all the people who contributed to it. congratulations to all the founding members. i know this is a long time in the making. the most excited about, is not just today but the future. this about our children and making sure as we think about problems as my son jack sits over there, honest will, this generation when we tackle problems not just san francisco problems the regional problems and were not tackling them the city government were tapping together with private sector with academia and that the wording of the best solution yet so congratulations to everyone and thank you i just can't wait for the future here together. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you, market our next speaker is naomi kelly with the city administrator of the city of san francisco. i am agree with sympathetic partner in the gen. services administration did we know how hard your job is. we get to do it for the federal government to the other one a come over and talk shop were always here for you. ladies and gentlemen, naomi kelly. >>[applause] >> good morning. i was thinking about all the numbers

of how much office space you manage and how much procurement you have and its enormous. i was very proud of our numbers we manage the city of san francisco about 4,000,000 ft.2 of office space and $1 billion in procurement and we manage 25 year-tenure 25 million capital plan. and compared to those numbers that's small. compared to the gsa. but, it's really great to be here today because of the chair partnership that will have with each other in sharing best practices, learning new innovative procurement policies, it policies. it will be very helpful in that it's helping us share relevant data, figuring out what the data we have with the city but good data the government has put together super public is that we can share with each other so we can be much more innovative. there's things were doing here in san francisco just in the city administrator in our local gsa office, looking at how we

manage our fleet. how we are using telematics or black box which will behold so helpful to us to figure out when a card word vehicle needs to go into maintenance versus guessing,. rb rightsizing the fleet we see there's a lot of analyte underutilized vehicles but we can reduce the number berkeley. his rc fleet sitting in idling speed we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by a relevant amount of data were getting from that. i also upgrade during the next week and am in the process creating a digital service team. we are actively recruiting for digital service officer. this is all about the public experience. how can we in government better serve our residents, art tourists, visitors is a neat services from

the government, a website how can we approve our website so they can get the information they need from a resin with the residential parking permit, whether it's a productivity, but it's a marriage certificate there's much we can do to provide services online so folks do not have to come down to city hall or wait in line to get services they need. so, were very excited about our digital service team working with a private industry, working with customer service looking at a processes how to better streamline them as we don't want to automate a broken process and of course working with our it department to make sure that our systems are running smoothly and to make sure all our data is secure because we do-we do want to make sure that everything we do is secure and that were not violating any private information that gets out there. i'm so looking forward to this partnership and thank you very much. >>[applause] >> thank you naomi. now, last

but not least, the executive director of the city innovate foundation and very much the leader for super public, we are very lucky to have cameron and of leading the charge for us that it's been fabulous working with him so far. you are a welcome breath of knowledge on all the things foundational things we need to make this a reality. i hope gsa has been a good partner to good is and gentlemen, kim and city >>[applause] >> i think a lot of you have been on this journey for the last two years and it's been tough but i want to keep it short because of that people that sing to me for the last 5 min. that the mayor needs to live soon. what i do undo is actually think mayor ed lea. the sender gsa administrator district supervisor mark we met a few times but farrell and naomi kelly city of mr. and people behind the scenes like andrew the month, the republic of under atf, krista and jacob

mayor's office of senate innovation to grace upon is at uc berkeley susan and also been great from day one. gifford in the city innovate foundation team.) james to make sure we talked about regional issues she's achieved resiliency officer in oakland she is working the on the past 18 months over this and not least the private sector. don't forget them because they do help pay our bills can i do i think microsoft socialize and evangelize the passage be described. the of our friends from deloitte who are good partners and now at&t and one of the things that i think a lot of people talk about the project that we've been looking at one of the other areas than looking at with san francisco, open and others not to forget their smart cities but were looking at inclusive cities. we should try this with communities so we part up with civic makers in a couple of model you're looking at a cut

program rolling this out engaging the community and doing it the right way. again thank you all for coming out here. yes, we hope that that show will change and his major was pointed out, there will be a lot of international cities that come in and us cities to learn about the bit about what we're doing here. thank you. >>[applause] >> okay. so, now we get to get to the good work of actually running super public which were more excited about any event. gsa loves doing things but i'm going to invite all our guests right now and we will cut this with him. i think this is as are behind me the very large service. in the very careful handing these out. >>[laughing] have to bring the semi-carry on tonight. can be tough to get through the airport. >>[laughing]

>> three, two, one cut it. >>[applause] >> >> this coffee memory i remember having coffee with any grappled. in the old days myelogram ma get together >> i was six or seven i made a faces a good face. >> when i was younger i know it

did something to my body. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i've been drinking coffee since i was 17 really the only thing i'm good at i was trying to find out what i was good at i got a job at the coffee shop i decided to do that the rest of my life. i like the process of the coffee and what are those beans where do they come from oh, they come from a fruit. >> the coffee stays with me since i was a kid i grew up and opened coffee shops everybody. in the 8 i visited over 11

hundred coffee shops maybe more to see why people go to coffee shops >> we're searched the beans all over the world from east afghan and tokyo. >> when i wanted to do was get into aspect of the personal coffee and the processing and everything else there was multiple steps in making coffee and we did have a lighter roost because of the qualities of the keep once you roost it it home gisz the coffee. >> one thing about the coffee they were special blends and i spent seven years on one blend so that's my pleasure.

each bean they were all chosen and blended with each with different cultural and beans is like people and those people give me a reputation i can't buy. people love you my clients love me they take me to the moves movies. >> fell in love with coffee and went to the coffee shops the community aspect i really enjoyed. >> i think it's important to have a place for people to show up and talk to their neighbors and recorrect. your surrounded with all those behalf communicated i communities >> i love my city san francisco has a good name my has every

cultural in this planet living in san francisco it's a small city 7 by 7 but it's huge. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i really like the idea of staying in the neighborhood and living in the mission i've lived here the whole time and the community really stick to it people talk about seattle and portland now they talk about seattle and san francisco. or portland and san francisco but san francisco is definitely on the cutting-edge of the coffee scene in the entire nation.

>> there's so many romance in coffee is surrounds the sourcing of that and thinking about where it came from and how and coffee is wonderful. >> i know for a fact i was born to make coffee. i have a notice from the dad let the life i live speak for me and let's have a cup of coffee and talk about it. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ternoon. and welcome to the any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.