>> the clerk: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm david moody a resident of 330 presidio. i've lived there over 20 years. first thing we'll talk about is the storage space and i know they've talked about allocating or re-allocating it once you maybe approve the plan. currently i have an 8.5' x 5'space. that's a 60% reduction in space so that's a concern. and we heard about this northern border wall mr. arigati and mr. paxton talked about about the cantilever overhang. there's no such thing. if you look at the google maps the northern wall runs from the dirt straight up to the sky. there's no cantilever or

abuttment out there. and so with that the project is based on fake drawings. it needs to be looked at and the project need to be paused or rebuilt. >> the clerk: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, mr. paxton, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> i think mr. vettel is sincerely confused on something. there's an open area in the building which has been proposed to be filled in.

here is the area the project applicant has shown on the drawings on exhibit f to be punched out two feet to the north. [speaker off mic] >> the red line is where the existing wall is now. there's a mistake in the representation. there's six in his exhibit f.

he has provided replacement space for four of them. in fact there's five tenants that have space. common area moved. i don't have a problem with that except the laundry and storage units are moved to an area part of this inside leased area. he can't do that. with the expansional work that we're talking about and there are certain exposure requirements and if they stay within the building the room is not big enough to meet the exposure requirement. the proposed project will not work at 330 presidio avenue because there's not suitable and available space, however,

there's tremendous financial incentive for the property owner to gain approval of the a.d.u.s but the only way for this to gain approval is for the project applicant to take space which is not his to take, to misrepresent the conditions. to the reviewing governmental agencies or bend or break the rule or all of the above. the construction of new a.d.u.s should not be seen as a license for property owners to take leasable space which has been leased to someone else and bypass the rule governing property rights. it pains me to see there's an opportunity to weaken the building. thank you for your time. >> the clerk: thank you. rebuttal? >> thank you, the only point i

would want to make again is that the remedy here for the two tenants in the building is to seek a rent reduction from the rent board if they feel their housing services have been reduced in a way they have a loss of housing services and there say remedy. the petition can be filed by a tenant who believes the reduction of service is substantial and reduces the value of their tenancy. that's the remedy. not to revoke the permit but let the permit be revised so the housing services can be maintained. >> so when they go to the rent board for that is it off the $792 he pays for the two bedroom and two cars. >> i don't know. >> commissioner: thank you. >> do you have a response to what's been brought forth by the appellant and oral testimony

relate to the infill? >> i don't. i've looked at the plans and i looked at the cantilevered room. i haven't been out there. >> may we ask the project sponsor that same question, commissioner. >> that was the project sponsor. >> the owner. he's doing it. >> i'm embarrass to say i'm not sure. >> commissioner: could you state your name. >> joe taboni. owner of the building. i bought the building in october of 2015. prior owner, brendan quinlan engaged mercury engineers to do the soft story work which was

all approved. i had no knowledge on expanding any envelopes. unfortunately, my engineer's not here that drew the plan. but as i measure out the units. thank you. i'm in the sure with the expansion question. sorry. >> commissioner: thank you. >> the clerk: next. >> good evening. so this issue of the reapportion of the northern building wall the plans on the subject permit, the existing plan show the ground floor should be flush with the rest of the wall and the property line and therefore from the proposed there's no

shown expansion of that space. whether or not -- and i can point this out on the overhead -- this is the existing can and area in question, the rear northern wall. you can see it's shown as being as a flush property line wall with storage units stacked and then there's no change here where the a.d.u.s are being proposed. in terms of what was proposed in the plans there was no proposed building expansion where the a.d.u.s were expand. if so it could only be under a

cantilevered space or one-story deck. we were approving the plans based on what was represented so i can't verify the appellants plans where it's an accurate representation of what's existing in the field. >> thank you. >> a site visit may be appropriate to verify existing conditions and structural issues i'd be concerned about. i got a look at structural drawings and there may be one wall that's a sheer wall.

only drawings before me there are no -- it may be the best course of action. i also have concerns about the area between the doors it look like into the units. they're calling out for 1r doors and walls but there's two windows in there. you can't have that if that's a rated area and that then would affect the living area and i'd need to do research on that as well. i'm asking for more time from d.b.i. >> commissioner: i disagree with you. you can't have a window in a regular wall. you can. it's limited in size. >> i need to look into that. it's a big window. >> commissioner: thank you. >> the matter is a continuance.

>> >> commissioner: we can't tell from the photo whether it's at the property line or not. let the department gather information and we'll have to bring this back. >> commissioner: madame director? >> the clerk: i'd encourage you to move away from the april 11th meeting because tea --it's full maybe the 18th. >> i'm out of town on the 11th and 18th. is the 4th too soon. >> commissioner: there's no meeting on the 4th. >> joo >> commissioner: >> the clerk: the next meeting is -- how about april 25th. >> commissioner: the departments know what they need to do?

move to continue this to april 25th. >> the clerk: and a visit to verify -- >> commissioner: the existing condition. >> the clerk: thank you commissioner fung. commissioner lazarus >> aye. commissioner fung. >> the clerk: aye. commissioner swig >> the clerk: the motion passes. the last item is (9) appeal no. 18-016 mark brecke, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 100 gates street. protesting the issuance on january 24, 2018, to julian schuchard and meble tin, of a site permit (partial vertical addition and interior remodel to a two-story single family residence; work includes renovated kitchen and bathroom, new roof deck, altered street level entrance, new windows and new siding). .

we'll start with the appellant. have you seven minutes to present your case. >> thank you, board. i'm mark brecke. the biggest concern we had with our discretionary review, don't think the commissioners took in consideration the loss of light. i'm a documentary photographer and filmmaker. my work is all over the world. my light in the early morning in the golden hour when i assess my prints in my studio. >> commissioner: could you hold on. could you take conversations out in the hallway, please? >> any sun that comes up is when i use that light.

it move around. first photo is 6:30. this is around 8:00. it's actual light is there enough light if they build this third floor addition to do my normal work at that golden hour? three feet would allow a tunnel of light at the hour they use that i can work with my presents. -- prints. the planners down at the project or the building department at the counter, they're the ones that encouraged me to come up here.

76 filings and not the cantilever which will affect my space as you see here. look how close it is. that fence fence is my backyard. it sticks out 7.5'off the roof. that alone the cantilever should have a comprehensive rendering because it's visible from the right of way as people walk by. i would love the project sponsor to have made a comprehensive 3-d model behind of this third-floor edition.

because it's drastically going to effect my studio and my second floor and my third floor with regards to light pollution. we were asking for a small, modest functional modification that i can keep that light and use that light in the morning when i do it. okay, three feet. you would think these modifications would already be inside the design or on the table. let's make this clear, this whole ordeal has been disturb. we're former clients of peter ling and we designed and now he's taken the vast knowledge of our home and using that against us. he will distort that knowledge if it favors his client at 100 gates like he did in the office with amy beinhart until our lawyer had to call him out and say no. it is completely unethical and

unacceptable. we're asking for a modification. the architect said it brings it up a notch in rules of conduct. that's not correct. it's one of the reasons i bought the home. my wife is a doctorate the hospital and used to walk there 20 years. i'm asking for three feet. julian, the permit holder when we had a pre-application meeting we told the project sponsor and julian we had a $20,000 landscape project already slated to go in our backward. they didn't like that. perhaps it would hurt their process of permit. production started a week after the meeting. we hear from our construction

workers that julian's over there taking pictures, telling the workers what to do and disrupting work. and even with the lines between julian and peter we reached out with an olive branch and tried to mediate this thing and get the three feet. we've given up on the other light pollution. i don't know what the issue is here. we want to move beyond this tonight and we want three feet cut from the north side. this is what a do in that space. this is a sudanese mother

escaping the violence in darfar. mr. fung knows why was not at the meeting last time i was at the hague testifying against the president who has slaughtered 50,000 of his own people per day. almost 500,000 total. you know, i would like the overhead project on, please. >> if you cut that three feet, it will allow me to have a tunnel of light that i can use. a tunnel of light that i can use in the morning hour right there. that's what we're asking for, three feet.

thank you for your consideration. >> the clerk: thank you. we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening commissioners. i'm peter liang. i run the project and a neighbor. i live approximately half a block from the appellant, . we we've had a relationship as neighbors and done work for him and been in his house and have experience in both dwellings. i bring my role here primarily to orient you to the geographical and physical

conditions of the site. i'm unclear as to how much you've seen documentation to the project so far so please chime in with any questions. if i may have the overhead. i'm going to attempt to deploy technology here to spin you around. >> hunter gates is the applicant from julian's house. up the hill is mark brecke, the appellant house. they are contiguous lots. there's approximately 47 feet, 8 inches from the extent of the proposal and the rear of the appellant's house. the appellant's house is uphill, significantly even with the

proposed addition on julian's house, mark's house is still about 25 feet higher. furthermore, julian's house is directly to the east therefore when the sun does rise, it would be at the moment the house may impose any impact on the daylight at mark's house.

and it's below it in elevation. and i'm going to spare you the copious graphical materials i have here but please ask me if you have questions. i'm available to explain details if you have any questions. thank you. >> good evening, president fung. plymouth development. this was filed in 2016. it's in an rh1 district. it was reviewed by the planning department and was determined to be consistent with the planning code and the residential design guidelines as you've seen and

heard, it's essentially a third-floor addition to an existing two-story single-family home set back 18 feet from the back of the property. the existing footing is not a historic resource. the project was d.r.'d in july of 2017. we have to ways we staff and present d.r.s at the planning commission for projects that are more substantial addition or new construction. we do a complete and full d.r. analysis and for those we do require more materials such as renderings. for smaller projects we feel are within the bounds of the residential design guidelines we consider those to be abbreviated d.r. reports so we do a short report to the planning commission. we do not require the additional material. and that was what this was an abbreviated d.r. packet to the

planning commission so no rendering were required. i think the issue that's been raised is a very peculiar issue how people use their buildings. there's not really a specific issue relate to urban design and specifically the residential design guidelines. those guidelines talk of impact to the open space and they do not necessarily protect sunlight to specific homes or views or rooms for specific uses. because of that, when this was heard at the planning commission in october of last year, there was definitely sympathy or the neighbor in terms of having a peculiar use. however, the d.r. was unanimously disapproved and the project was approved as submitted. planning approved the permit in december of this past year in d.b.i. then issued the permit in

january of this year. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. teague, i noticed in planning there were four commissioners so there was barely a forum. >> yeah. >> so three didn't show up. so the other thing is from the back of the property so the other is 48 feet? >> yeah. >> commissioner: so it's not the light and air more the view of the sun? >> to that point, the residential design guidelines does not protect light and air onto other buildings. it's really in the rear it's about protecting light and air into a cohesive open space and issues relate to view whether it's the bay or sun or whatever are generally not protect.

>> commissioner: last question, for clarity, there's no shadow or 3-d rendering required for this, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner: mr. teague, the appellant talked a little bit in his brief about the height limit. what does the department say about that? >> sure. and this is confusing because there's often two separate heights. there's the physical, actual heights with maybe the peak of the roof and how the planning code determines to be the measured height and so in this situation the actual measured height for the planning code is 30 feet. it could not be higher. but there say parapet that goes beyond that a foot and a half. the physical height is i believe

31.5'. >> thank you. >> the clerk: inspector duffy. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. it's been approved by building so far. the addendum is still going through. i'm available for any questions. >> the clerk: is there any public comment on this item? please step forward ? you'll have time on rebuttal. >> i'm david melman. i'm lived in vernal heights over

30 years. i'm a neighbor and have been through the process of renovating my own house. we did some modest and permitted additions to the help. we followed the rules. i'm in favor of the project for several reasons. first of all, i believe no variance is being requested and it appears to meet all the planning guidelines and zoning for the neighborhood. and a casual walk through the neighborhood indicates that many houses have had a third story added over the years. the drawings demonstrate the addition will not block the light or views in any substantive view from the neighbor's house and lastly the house was apparently -- i've walked by the house many times and it was apparently very badly maintained. i don't know what the circumstances were about the people who were living there but

the house was barely livable. and it's also two small for a modern family. by creating livable space, i believe the proposed project will effectively add housing stock to a city that desperately needs it for families. thank you. >> the clerk: any other public comment? seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellant, mr. brecke. we have several neighbors who support this third-story addition. we also have four neighbors who

signed a petition that 400 gates was not an abandoned drug house. i knew that man. he fell on hard times. he moved in to take care of her and died. his father took a second mortgage out behind his back and the bank took the house, okay. my daughter used to play in the backyard. i would never let that happen if he was -- he was also a tradesman in local 6. when the light is gone and the project built, it's built. i worked for years using that specific light. that light is totally diffused and even. that's why those experts wrote the letters on our behalf including one that worked for ansel adams. any amount of life in the studio will have an affect on my work.

this is not architectural terms. this say church in rwanda and 5,000 people were murdered in that church. this is an albain -- albanian family just returning after their house had been burned and this is the mother who escaped genocide in darfar. president barack obama has this photo. my work is on permanent collection at the museum of holocaust. i think that work done in that space is worth that three feet. that's what we're asking.

that's what we're asking. when the light is gone, it's gone. and the experts who wrote those letters, they continued the statement even after they saw the shadows. that should be very telling right there. i thank you. i'm asking for three feet. three feet. >> the clerk: we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> good evening. my wife and i are the homeowners. we first submitted permits nearly two years ago. it's been a long expensive and stressful process. we thought it was done with the discretion review voted in our favor 4-0 and just to quote the planning commission,

[indiscernible] we see aggressive and contentious projects of which this isn't one. he went on further to say it's not one brought to d.r. we've strictly abided by all the planning codes and paid $15,000 in city fees and worked tirelessly with the team. we met mr. brecke multiple times and listened to their concerns and offered solution and offered to pay for the broken retaining wall. unfortunately, he's a very hostile man. on the issue of light, because of the steep incline, one in three towers almost 50 feet above us with over 50 feet distance between the properties and our proposal would not cause shadow to the yard. there is no light issue.

there is no extraordinary circumstance. the planning department agrees with us and given us full backing as has the d.r. board and have huge support from the neighborhood. we have 20 signatures from several neighbors that want to see the transformation of an abandoned house and it was abandoned with needles and burned out walls into something that is sustainable for a family home and it's unfair for appellants who have no [indiscernible] and recently built a large deck with no permit to delay us who are law-abiding citizens with a permit. i understand and respect it's difficult when new people come into a neighborhood for those who have been there a long time. my wife is pregnant and we intend on growing our family in this home. we don't believe a 2100 square foot home isn't reasonable or

out of place on a street with larger homes. it's become a huge financial burden. we're desperate to start building and i have 10 months to get my life and newborn into a livable home. please allow us to build our home. thank you. >> the clerk: thank you. anything further, mr. teague. commissioners. unless you have commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> commissioner: commissioners. >> commissioner: you know, it's hard to impact the permit holder. i think the department vetted this correctly and unfortunately 47 feet is a good distance away.

>> thank you. it was proper issued. >> the clerk: the motion is sto deny the appeal and grant the permit on that motion from the vice president, president fung. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> the clerk: commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> the clerk: the motion passes. >> i should have spoken earlier. i wanted to wish cynthia many many happy years of retirement. it's thoroughly deserved. thank you for everything i've learned from you and your true professionalism and friendship and guidance and i'd like to

read an irish poem. this is your life has arrived after years of toil look back with graciousness on your great and high quiet achievements. >> commissioner: is it appropriate to adjourn in honor of our executive. >> adjourned. >> i'm going cry.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs.

but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. i want to thank everyone for coming here, all of the guests and leaders standing behind me. we're here today because history, earthquakes and climate change compel us to protect our city. history. over 100 years ago, the 'em sea wall was built and we're fortunate it lasted this long. it was built at a time when they didn't know how to stabilize against earthquake risk.

we know the big one will strike us at some point over the next three decades. and if it does, we'll see flooding along the water front. climate change, despite climate deniers we know that the estimates of sea level rise by the end of the next century are 4-10 feet. we need to fix this sea wall. what is it that we're trying to protect? millions of san franciscans and californians who live work and play along the waterfront. we see 24 million tourists visiting our waterfront every year. it's imperative we protect this asset not just for san francisco, but the bay and the california economy. i want to again thank everyone standing behind us, our mayor, board of supervisors. when i was on the board of supervisors, i served on the capital planning committee, where we planned for how we took

care of tens of billions of dollars of assets. this is at the top of the list. i want to thank my current colleagues in the legislature. you'll hear from scott wiener. in 2005 they established the financing district we're talking about today. she had drafted the legislation to ensure we're investing in infrastructure as well as historic resources, the bill we're discussing today is to ensure we're expanding what it is that we're protecting. protecting our shoreline, ensuring we can rebuild our seawall. before i introduce our next speaker, i want to say two things. we're here in part because we have to come together as a community. you'll hear about the efforts at the local level, as well as at the state level and what we had hoped was going to be the federal level, but despite what donald trump is saying what he

is doing about infrastructure, none of us are holding our breath. so san francisco and california need to act. we're here for our kids. and our grandkids. none of us are going to be around when the next century turns. but my hope is my son and his friends and his next generations, will look to this day as a day that our city leaders came together to care for and steward the assets of our city. our next speaker is someone who has children of his own, and i know that he cares very much about ensuring that the future of our city is in good hands. i'm delighted to help introduce the mayor of the city and county of san francisco, mayor mark farrell. >> thank you, david. i am proud to be here as the mayor to thank -- [horn honk]

i'm going to start off. i want to thank mr. chu along with assembly member ting, but specifically on this issue here. leadership is critical to the future of our city. critical to the future of the waterfront and proud to be here at this announcement today. our waterfront is one of the most iconic parts of san francisco. it always has been. subjects of pictures, it's why tourists come here. it's one of the most beautiful parts of our city. and holding up the waterfront is our seawall. these are the buildings, the waterfront, the restaurants, the small businesses, but it's been holding back the bay to make sure that our tunnels are not flooded. holding back the rising tides of our san francisco bay to make sure we can walk along the waterfront in front of us here

today. it is critically important to san francisco today and to the future of our city. we need to do everything we can as a city to make sure it survives and it's strong for the next generation. this project is not cheap. i want to really thank elaine for her leadership and the entire port commission for making sure we plan for the future. it is a $5 billion project that we have to plan for. the voters of san francisco will have a bond on the ballot going toward this effort. and the bill is going to play a huge start in kick starting the project. and let's be clear, this is about planning for the future of the city. it's about infrastructure and making sure our city is resilient when the next earthquake hits. the next earthquake will hit. it's not a matter of if, but when. we need to be strong and ready to respond and make sure our

infrastructure is ready to protect the residents of our city. proud to be here today and really want to thank assembly member chu for his leadership. thank you, everyone. >> thank you, mr. mayor. some 13 years ago in 2005 when they established the legislation to take what were known as public trust lands owned by the state to turn them over to the authority of our port department for stewardship, i want to thank elaine and her department and commissioners for bringing this to our attention for so many years. i championed the earthquake safety emergency response bonds. there were two of them over the years. unfortunately, we were not able to the bonds to develop or create the assets to protect what we have here at the port. with that i'd like to bring up elaine forbes to tell us where our seawall infrastructure needs to go.

>> thank you so much, assembly member chiu. i'm representing the port staff. we have the port commission president by my side and she'd she's been a steward of the waterfront for 20 years. i can say this is a dream come true day for us. it's remarkable to see the leadership behind me embracing and supporting the need for investment in the waterfront. as our mayor and assembly member has said, this seawall is a work horse for the city. so much economic activity. the infrastructure. and there is other things, too, that the seawall does that goes unseen. it's going to be the place of emergency response. we expect people to go out by water in the event of a major earthquake and goods to come in by water. this has to hold up. if we're preparing and

preventing disaster, it will be five times less to do so proactively. this represents how we can get this done. how this daunting task of a $5 billion effort will come to fruition because the leaders behind me are making this a priority. we start with the $500 million phase, laying out the improvements for 20-30 years and then tackling the most critical pieces first. i want to give a huge thank you to naomi kelly behind me. she pole vaulted this project along with mayor lee by identifying it as a critical piece of infrastructure for the city. so we're so -- port staff, port commission and i are so excited for the day, so thankful for the state leadership for assembly member chu, ting, getting us

$250 million for the project, should this be approved, we'll work hard to get it done. we're so thankful the leadership has heard our call and is going to prioritize a safe and vibrant waterfront. thank you so much. >> i'm grateful to my colleagues for representing this effort. phil ting, as well as our next speaker, senator scott wiener. >> thank you, david, i want to thank assemblyman chiu for his leadership. when we served on the board of superviso supervisors together, we all care about infrastructure, but david took so much leadership on not just the sexy infrastructure, but on the infrastructure that we depend on

but the people don't see. and the seawall is certainly part of that. i want to thank the port. i am really trying to work and support the port's effort to move this bond to the ballot. i want to thank elaine, my neighbor, and the entire port staff for its leadership on this critical issue. this is really about two realities of life. sea level rise and earthquakes. and as much as we want to wish them all away, we can't. the big earthquake is going to come and unless we take radical, radical action today around reducing carbon emissions and fighting climate change, we're going to continue to see sea level rise. and sadly because of the disaster known as washington d.c., there is no bold action happeni happeni federally to address climate change, and we're doing what we can but this is a

national problem we have to resolve. we're going to continue to see significant sea level rise. our downtown is so at risk of inundation, we're doing what we can to reduce carbon emissions. doing what we income the bay area. just a year ago we passed a tax to start restoring the wetlands destroyed in the bay area 150 years ago, because that will help us to mitigate sea level rise. but with everything we're doing, we have to have the seawall. it has to be intact, has to be able to with stand an earthquake and be able to protect us from the bay. we love the bay, but the bay is going to cause us problems when it floods the muni subway tunnel and downtown areas. we need to get this bill passed. this is just one step. we need the bond. we need this bill and a lot more work to fund this project.

i look forward to collaborating to get it done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator wiener for reminding us we're putting the sexy back into infrastructure. i want to thank everyone for coming together. i want to invite the next speaker, someone who has been a champion for infrastructure in our city, supervisor london breed. >> thank you, everyone for being here today. you know, it's easy to talk to residents of san francisco about the need for more housing. the need to address challenges with public safety and homelessness and things we can see. what is harder is trying to help people to understand the significance of the things that we can't see. the infrastructure needs that hold our city together. we know the consequences when we

don't do what is necessary to protect our infrastructure. we only look at new orleans and what happened with the levies and how that devastated that particular city. and so we in san francisco, we must be proactive, we must take these kind of bold moves and creative solutions. i want to thank assembly member david chiu for finding a very creative way to help us pay for it. i want to thank the voters in advance, because this fall, we're going to have a ballot measure that is going to help with $350 million to help in this effort. we know that there is so much work to do in san francisco. and as the president of the board who now serves on the unknown capital planning committee, the needs of our infrastructure are at the top of my list on a regular basis. i want to thank not only noemie

kelly, but also elaine forbes. she would reach out and say, supervisor, i want to meet with you about the seawall, i say, wait a minute, i have to work with this challenge. she always brings it back to how important it is not just to protect my district, but to protect the entire city. her leadership along with port commissioner president kimberley brandon that been outstanding. they've been in sacramento, in d.c., they've been all over the place trying to put together the money for this particular seawall and i know with their leadership and the work of all the policy behind me, we're going to get this done for the people of san francisco. thank you so much. >> thank you, president breed. our final speaker is someone who represents the district we're currently in who knows that it is her residence and businesses

that could be flooded if we do not invest in the infrastructure. please join me in welcoming supervisor kim. >> thank you, assembly member chiu. as someone who represented your sister district when we both served on the board of supervisors, we understand the importance of strengthening our seawall, shield that prerkts our residents and workers and many of the tourist attractions up and down the waterfront. mayor mark farrell, myself, supervisor cohen and peskin represent the districts that are along the boundary lines of the seawall lot that we're here about. so much of what we love about our city is just along the waterfront, our housing, offices, jobs, transportation, the giants who i see in the audience today. it is important to make prudent investments today to strengthen the seawall shield and

strengthen the unbreakable bond between the city of san francisco and the waterfront we love so much. i want to thank our san francisco delegation in sacramento, for making sure we're prioritizing the very infrastructure that will keep the city beautiful and running, thank you very much. [applause] >> that concludes today's press conference. again, appreciate everyone coming together around a plan to protect the future of our city and our seawall. any final questions? we will end the press conference and open it up to folks to ask individual questions. thank you very much. it.

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000

district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots

we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all

>> president adams this is a regular meeting of the small business commission held on monday, march 26th, 2018. the meeting is being called to order at 2:01 p.m. the small business commission thanks media services and sfgovtv for televising the meeting. members of the public please take this opportunity to silence your phones and any other electronic devices. public comment during the meeting is limited to three minutes per speaker, unless otherwise established by the es