>> we do not do any kind of modification as far as the windows is concerned. the only thing we did is there was one window that needed some, iink there was a crack and we replaced it with a pane of gla glass. >> commissioner honda: so those windows were replaced prior? sorry to interrupt you. >> they were all replaced prior. some of them were done in 2011, the previous owner. some of them we looked today and they were there prior to 2,002. >> commissioner honda: thank you. that was my question. >> thanks. >> we will hear from mr duffy, the senior inspector with d.b.i. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. so, two permits. one permit to comply with

another permit. to change one legal window to one legal window with 60 fire resistant rating assembly, and it says in parenthesis, the front building. it was taken in by the ide building inspection division, and issued a fire department to review and issued by the department bureau on the 15t 15th of march, and the other permanent, same language. it was to change three illegal windows to legal windows with 60 fire resistant rated openings. and then in parenthesis, we have back. i presume it was the back building. the permit again, issued and reviewed -- reviewed by bid. the fire department and central permit bureau issued on the 28th of march, and the permits

were suspended on april 10th because of the appeals. let me start with the complaint that d.b.i. received. complaint was received on the 20th of february, 2018. and it was -- the complainant's name and phone number is on here. legal conforming windows on the property line and there were pictures atta wid the complaints that was received by d.b.i. that was on the 20t20th of february. on the 21st of february, it was -- sorry the 26t26th of february it was seen by inspector duffy. inspector duffy ruled the following notice of an of violation. a complaint has been filed in this report -- department on the east property line with the building permits.

on the third floor of the front building, the installation of two numbers and the third floor of the rear building, installation of fraud or a windows. no permit exists for this work. he cited the relevant code sections as work without a permit. the corrective action, it reads obtained ability permit within the time period indicated to legalize, modify or approve lot line at windows. obtain required inspections to close this complaint. that was by the building permit. and complete all the work within 90 days. i was contacted by the permit holder a couple weeks ago and i asked to come back and read to me at d.b.i. regarding the case. if you wanted to go over any of the issues on the appeal, --, i got a chance to meet him at d.b.i. to be honest, we have a few minutes of speaking to him. i realized that this building permit, in my opinion, the first

thing i noticed was the language on the permit didn't really comply with the notice of violation. the permits, from what i am reading on the complaint and the notice of violation, there was never a building permit to install. they installed without a permit. we have a wall, and then we have openings cut into the wall and windows installed without a permit. it seems to me those were the wrong type of windows, and subsequently when he had to take care of this notice of violation, he had to take those windows out and put in a fire rated window that complied with the building code. and then also to comply with the other requirements that should have been the fire sprinklers, the structural details for header sizes. when you cut an opening in a wall, you have to take care of the structural issues they are. you have to allow for this band that has been created on the opening.

i do not believe in the drawings that were approved by d.b.i. and i have an issue with the way they were approved. any structural drawings were on those drawings. and then there was the sprinkler requirement that was referred to in a separate permit. the building permits themselves also only reference one permit application that references three illegal windows, and another one -- the other permit only reference is one. we know from the notice of violation there is a total of six windows. in the last few days, the permit holder has come down to d.b.i. and tried to correct that by getting permits where this permit was under suspension, pending appeal. we don't normally do that. we did actually issued two permits on the 4th of june. one to comply to change one illegal window, and then he pulled another permit and that was for, when he references the

permit under appeal, then he pulled another permit to change another one to a legal window with it sprinklers. d.b.i., today, revoked those permits because we don't like the issuance of permits where the building permit is under appeal. those permits have been revoked on a notice of violation issue. my opinion on this is it probably should have stated to comply with notice of violation to legalize the work that was completed without the benefit of a building permit. the scope of work was for the installation, sorry, the removal of fraud threat noncompliant windows to comply with the permit of the san francisco building code. the permits would have been required. we could have done fraud for windows in one and what a windows on another. this plan should have had a full set of structural, architectur

architectural, existing propose relevant code sections. i think this probably would have let them differ that sprinkle are requirements. i think the fire department does allow that. we wouldn't sign off the permit without the sprinklers being led.al spengler is rick required at the inside of each of the new windows. there are eight or nine conditions that they have to meet as well. i did see those on the drawings. this is an issue that needs to be resolved. we have a notice of violation. the property owner does need to get a permit to comply with it. it is not like, he can't get a permit, he needs a permit. the proper permits needs to be applied for. i think he needs to start again on the right path, that's my opinion. i think he is wasting a lot of time and effort. and it has not been handled well

and how we get a permit for three windows when they need four. he missed two it looks like, to me. i know he was trying to correct things, but he did not go about it the right way. i'm available for questions. >> you've seen the drawings, right? >> i had a quick look at them at the office. i don't believe -- you can check with the architect on the rebuttal, but i do not believe there are any structural drawings to address any of the issues. that would be a concern, but when you cut openings, that many openings into walls, you want to make sure you have them structurally. the work has been covered up and down. from what i am reading, i assume that no permit was obtained. from the gnosis of violation i am reading, i don't think there was existing windows. it doesn't reference it. so the onus would be on them to

provide documentation for those windows. >> are you finished? >> yes, go ahead. sorry. >> a couple questions. one, the property line windows, you are having property line windows is limiting the adjoining property owner's rights. does not require 311 notification? >> sorry, i did not mention the notification. notification is not required by d.b.i. or planning. we did not refer to these two planning because they're not visible from the street. >> the other question i have is that the spengler system will be required. so, is it different -- is it typical that when we are seeing a new construction it goes all the way down and having to be monitored once a year? >> i'm not sure about that. it is fire department business, sprinklers. >> that will get real expensive.

>> there was not a system above the whole building. the water will -- the water would help if there was a fire. it would lead the entire inside of the window with the water. it is a quick response type one that spreads the water pretty quickly over that area. it is required and it will be required. any part of the conditions of the approval. >> the other thing, the notice of violation that was issued, was there a penalty involved here? >> good question. >> nine times on a value of $4,500. that should have been paid on the permit. that was taken out. thank you. >> i'm confused here. >> okay. >> i got lost. >> i'm sorry. >> no know, your explanation was phenomenal, thank you. so, in summary, what i heard from the builder, is that -- he

has nothing to do with this, because basically, these are conditions that existed in the building when he purchased it. is that what i heard? >> i thought he said that too, yeah. >> so the notice of violation came as a result -- was it anonymous? or did it come from -- where did it come from? how did this all start? >> i don't normally read out the names, but i will. it is leonardo bronco. >> right. ok. >> he filed an appeal on the permit. >> yeah,, yeah,, yeah. tit for tat. so, clearly you are saying that they are -- they are not illegal window in their placement, they

are illegal windows because they do not meet the fire code, they do not have the sprinklers, they are not properly installed and a litany of stuff? ok. so, what is bothering me here is -- isn't the -- where does the architect for chain all of this? >> the architect is brought in after to get drawings down. he is taking on the work faster. he has to fix it. it is his master fix. it has not nice work, you know? >> so the permit -- the architect came to the scene after the permit was already filed for and issued? >> no. >> that's where i'm missing. >> so if someone has done work without a permit and we sighted them, we are asking them to get a building permit with plans.

when you have the notice of violation, you will need an architect. it is a multifamily building so you have to have a licensed architect. you are doing it backwards. you should have done that at the start before you did the work. either way, you would have needed an architect. you bring him in when you have a notice of violation and he prepares the drawings with d.b.i. he tried to do that but i don't think the permits were filled incorrectly or the drawings had everything that they should have had on there. there was stuff missing. the permit was approved by d.b.i. >> so what you are suggesting or stating is, all situations are amiss, right? >> yeah. >> because the windows, whether they are the right size or wrong size, clearly they are the wrong windows. they are badly installed and don't have the fire sprinklers, et cetera, and as a result, there is a notice of violation, and the fix it was proposed was

all screwed up because there weren't any real plans by a licensed architect to assure that any replacement was correct. so you are advocating, you know, let's start all over again, and fix these windows. >> and even the appellant's brief, there are five or six things. i brought them up with the gentleman this morning when i met him. the brief is spot on, actually. some of the stuff they addressed. i think the architect spoke to that. he was going to do structural details later. but we want that on one set of drawings. we might let you do for the sprinklers but you shouldn't be coming in later with any header details. i mean president fung knows that. you want everything on the drawings. you can try to legalize it. at that point, if that permit still appeals, i can't stand up here and say it yet this is the right permit to fix the notice of violation. then the question will be, what does the board of appeals allow in relation to the windows and

their location and size. at this point, my opinion is a good set -- we don't have a good set of approved plans or drawings to address the violation. >> if we uphold the appeal fine for the appellant, the five windows still need to be replaced. what is going to happen? >> he needs to reapply for the permits with a proper set of plans that address all the issues that you have so eloquently presented. >> i think so. i would like to hear their side of it. >> i think there are multiple options. it could be condition tears. >> yes. i said that. >> there's a couple different ways but, you know. >> you could do that. >> the condition would be that we uphold the appeal.

the condition being that the appellant provide a proper set of plans and courting according to all of the various requirements? and move forward. >> we still have public comment under a bottle. >> let's finish this. let them present their case. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> i apologize. mr sanchez. >> there is never a requirement of with the planning code for neighbourhood clarification. on the east side property, going back to 2,002, you can i the overhead, please. this window, towards the front of the property, and this window appeared going back to 2,002. that second window on the front

building was added, as well as the smaller ones at the rear. i was confused, because on the west side of the building the property line windows are there. i don't know the details of those. >> it just gets better and better. >> we know the building as well that there are three illegal dwelling units on the ground floor that the property owner is legalizing. it appears those units were added in 2016. they appear in the marketing materials. the property owner is working through the process to legalize the units to the extent possib possible. >> all the windows were done illegally prior to this owner. this owner really bought a lot of garbage. >> yes. from what i can see. certainly there windows --

>> great abuse. >> great views, but i -- great views but a full disclosure statement. >> is there any public comment on this item? ok we will move on to rebuttal. you have six minutes. thank you. >> i just want to remind everyone here that this case here is not about the roof deck. what happened is we started investigating about the windows after he opposed the roof deck. just to show you this is not about the roof deck, i want to share here, sorry for the destruction, my daughter was crying. this is one of the windows that has nothing to do with the roof deck. this is the front of the back building. it is right on our window. that is an issue that we have with all windows. there are options where we can

say. it is big and it does not look good. another thing you want to mention is that in 2,007, they changed all the windows. they mentioned here they did not touch the windows but that is not true. all the windows were replaced. this is not about the roof deck. this is not about revenging or anything. this is not a problem about windows on the property line. they have the right to keep the windows but they need to bring this up. we did not like this whole movement going around the city and finding a way to get a permit. we are here today with approved permits and last week we tried again with two other permits. we don't appreciate that someone is going around the roof to keep the views. this is all about that views. like you guys said, he bought the views. it came with it. this is not about the roof deck. we feel that this was a very

obnoxious and very early. >> are you finished, sorry? >> president fung: i have a question. when you make the statement that he replaced all those windows in 2017, on what basis are you making that statement? >> they are all new. >> president fung: that doesn't give me a basis. >> they were falling apart, and when we came back, the windows were new and there were stickers that they were new. you know, it was quick. they changed everything. they changed, you know, they fixed up the place when they bought the building. >> do you have any photos? and all the windows were there at that point in time. >> even the inspector when he came -- >> president fung: all those windows were there when you first purchased the building in 2013? >> the openings were there, and in 2017 he changed the windows. >> president fung: do you have

any photos pre2017? >> we can get some photos. i will make an observation. i made the complaint about the windows. when the inspector came to look at the windows, he looked at the windows and said, you know, this is a brand-new window. this is not operational to the building. it is clear the windows were changed recently. >> thank you. we will now here from the permit holder. >> first of all, you were talking about six windows. the six windows, as we presented here, they have all been there. not that none of them have been changed.

those were all original windows and i did not touch any of those windows. what they're trying to say. those are not what we are talking about. we are talking about the six windows with three small ones and three big ones. those were all there. this is one of them that change the glass. that's all they did. nothing else. if they've got the proof that he can come and ensure that i went and changed that, he needs to prove that and presents that. by coming and talking that he came back and saw the windows are change, that is not true. he is making false comments. he is trying to change the story here. i have to go and get the proper permits i just bought the

property. i'm not the developer. i found out these were illegal window so i'm trying to correct it. that's all i'm trying to do. i went to the city and i went to the engineering department and i got these permits. if they don't tell you that i need to the sprinklers, i am going to the city to request to make these illegal windows illegal. if i don't get input from the city, how my supposed to know? at the same time i want to go ahead and correct all these windows it will cost me more than 50-$60,000 to do this on top of the price i already paid.

these people are aware of all of these things unfortunately, it is because i brought up the roof issue that they are coming back and they are going to really hurt me. that is not right. that is wrong. >> are you done? are you done? yes? >> i'm done. >> i have a question. when you purchased this last year. was it disclosed to you that these windows were illegal? >> some work had been done in the property without permits. my understanding was, because of what the landlord said, there were three illegal units that they had. they said there were three

nonconforming units. my understanding was that those were done illegally. >> you have partners in this property? >> its myself. >> there are several names on this list. i do have a question for the architect. typically there'd be a new header and posts on the side. >> will that affect -- because if those windows were put in illegally without inspection, or as per code, because it looks like a 6-foot or 7-foot opening, does that mean by carrying that load you will have to carry it

down all the way down. >> there is potentially ways to spread the load. being at that level that we've done before. >> so you are not sure? you have not done any structural calculations at this point? >> no. to that point, this happens a lot. a lot of property line windows that we legalize, and cally it is just the permit that is a simple window replacement in kind with the legal components added to it. typically, that does not require structural drawings. that is why we -- >> that is a pretty large opening. and unfortunately, i mean that glass is really expensive. [laughter] ok. thank you. >> we didn't have the benefit of seeing the drawings that were submitted with the permits. are you -- excuse me, let me

rephrase that. you are legalizing all of the existing six windows as is? >> as is. >> as a configuration of those, as you are upgrading them to their rating, the configuration of those windows staying the same? >> yes. i understand, typically, if the window where rotting, d.b.i. allows us to exchange the window in kind. they relate to the sides, not necessarily the configuration. >> not if we change the configuration. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy? >> i have a question for mr duffy. i think -- why don't you go ahead? >> i think it would be good of

you to explain a little bit of how the code looks at the property line windows. >> the windows on the front? when you don't have a property line window? >> correct. >> with a property window in san francisco, you have to comply with provisions. there is about eight requirements. i can read the whole section. i have it with me. they have to be a three-quarter are rated window with a sprinkler head about that. you have to give a notarized statement, declaration, that if someone builds against that wall that you lose those windows, and you give up the right to them. they are not allowed to be used for it light or ventilation or egress windows. they're normally a fixed window. you see, use to see the old wired glass in them and now people pay extra to get the fire

light glass in them. is there any other things there that i can offer? >> that light -- the reason i ask, is it is something that i found out, not having known that before, is that the building department looks at the property line windows from purely technical points. not necessarily some part of an entitlement issue between neighbours. there is very little approvals required other than conformance to those technical points. that is what i was saying. >> it is a case by case basis. if you bring one and you will probably get your permit as long as you meet the requirements of the planning. >> as long as planning doesn't touch it. >> but then this board is different. >> of course. absolutely. >> it to the issue, i am glad i

allowed president to fung to go first. to continue that line of thinking, what about the size? i mean these windows were created not illegally. that is why there is a notice of violation. and what is the issue of the size, and it is, in looking at revising this permit, are you also going to revise the size of the window, potentially, because they are too large? or are they grandfathered in? or are they illegal as far as size because they are property line windows? and they are the way they are? >> a few weeks ago we had a case here where those windows -- you get a fire rated opening, a maximum of 25% of the total wa

wall. in my understanding, if that applies here as well. but, i brought that up with the department -- the permit holder this morning. they will have to do a calculation and see if that is right. the architect can correct me on that. these are approved by plan check. the size of the window, as well, the structural, you know, calculations will have to meet that. it sounds like the gentleman who bought the property didn't do the work, but somebody did it and did it without a permit. but we don't know about this windows in regards to header sizes and that. there are two issues that will come into play. the percentage of the openings, and structural evaluation of whether they were framed and done right. >> so there is the possibility, once that sizing was done, could

shrink at the order of d.b.i. >> okay. thank you. >> they can also -- aren't there other requirements for one hour rating is in terms of the size of the glass elements? >> twenty-five%? >> no, no. individual windowpanes. one of those windows stretches like eight or 10 feet across a single pain. >> and you are concerned about the glazing on that? >> i thought there would be a rating where there would be some size limitations? >> no. it is not addressed in that. it might be in another section of the code in chapter 7. >> in any event, what you are asking is that this is not a complete package yet.

>> correct. >> right. >> we should be acting upon it. >> i would still like to see the boarding on the permit. the wording on the permit application, the scope of work should be properly -- it is not just replacing windows, it is legalizing windows that were never legalized before. it was noncompliant and maybe someone put in an aluminum window. it is not properly rated and not the proper frame or a glass. someone put the windows in but not the right windows. they're taking those windows out and putting in new windows to make code and legalizing the actual openings that were never permitted. the wording on the permit, and to the drawings as well. it was missing on the drawings and would need to be on there. >> okay. >> you can check on that. >> i know. we can either agree with them, because they will act upon that of state is is not appropriate. you can either --

>> that or condition it and accepted. >> no, we could deny -- >> revoke? >> revoked, or we could continue this. >> the other thing, if we did have a proper package and we did have proper wording on the permit application, you still have to deal with the issue of the objections to the size. we're not even at that. >> what you are saying, is to act upon it, we should see what the exact package is? i am in agreement with that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> our choices are, if we find for the appellant and the permit is revoked, then that kicks it back. that stops everything. the owner of the building reapplies, if he chooses.

he has to, so the owner of the building does reapply for a permit, you are going to receive proper plans based on the sizing of the windows, based on the fire regulations, et cetera, et cetera, and a new permit will be issued. the risk of that, once it is issued again, is it will be appealed by the current appellant and will be back here again. at which point we will have a choice as to whether the permit, at that point, if the process was issued properly or not. we hope it will be at that point. >> exactly. >> those are our choices. or, if we fine for the appellant, and we put conditions on and, then it goes through the

same process. but then there won't be a reappeal, potentially. >> okay. >> i think we should continue. >> i think so too. >> definitely. [laughter] >> i know. ok. do we want to continue the matter? >> we have to submit the matter first. >> okay. i'm sorry. [laughter] >> you were all looking at me so i assumed you wanted to continue. the matter has been submitted. thank you. >> now we can make a decision. ok. >> ask them how long they need. >> do you have a question? >> we are supposed to ask you the question. [laughter] >> you are talking about a continuance. what would that be for. or is that a reason? would it be for d.b.i. to do something? i'm not really sure what the

continuance would be. >> either condition the permit or revoke? >> revoke? >> would you want new drawings? >> wouldn't that -- >> it could continue. >> wouldn't date submit a complete set of drawings now to the department for your review,. >> for our review, actually. >> well, know they would technically review it first. then it would come here. >> it would not be andre permit. they couldn't submit anything under a permit application because we are under suspension. >> excuse me, we are under deliberation. >> it might be better to deny it and have them start again. continuing it would be ok, but i can't take another set of plans -- >> to replace this? >> not on a new permit until we take action on this one. >> i see. >> the issue on this one, is

going for the three windows, right? >> yes that's right. >> that satisfies one thing, in that technically they wouldn't be able to resubmit it if they're submitting the same thing. over a period of one year. >> we want that to happen -- we wouldn't want that to happen. >> they would be submitting it as not the same. >> no, it would be correct. >> no, it would have to be -- >> i can pull and address restriction so it doesn't get missed. i probably know more about it now but it does need to proper review for full compliance. >> all right. >> i think in the interest of all parties, including the appellant, as well as the permit holder, and including the city, as well, the five windows, six windows, sorry, have to be wrapped together so we don't end

up -- i know they are two separate, but i think the six windows should be ultimately put under one permit so that there is continuity -- continuity, consistency and you get it done in one fell swoop. >> i can't do that with a two buildings. there's two buildings on the lot. the front and the rear. they each have to have a separate permits. that is why they split it up. that's the proper way to do it. we actually got two and obs. but when you come to a building permit, you want a permit -- building permit for each separate building. the one thing about doing this, denying it and bringing it back in again, these people here, the appellant's. they will appeal it again. may be we should find out what their objections are. i'm not up there. i am only here. if we are going to get hit again, it would be nice to have something that is approvable and issued, and not appealed. if we condition it -- if we

condition it on new plans, your review, your recommendation of an issuance fitting a certain parameter, then it's still under this hearing today, and then they cannot -- >> correct. and we are controlling this. >> yes. >> we have had two many cases where plans are submitted and they weren't appropriate, and then revise ones were submitted. when you made the statement that you cannot accept revised drawings because it's a spent a permit, i'm not sure i understand that. >> that has to go through the board of appeals. d.b.i. doesn't accept them. >> i'm saying, that in any plan review, if you folks find something that is incorrect, you ask for additional corrections

from the architect. they resubmit those to you as part of thesame pcess. >> correct. >> so that if they want to do a complete set of plans that conforms to your standards, they resent that to you and it states here and they don't have to reappeal, and resubmit another appeal, and at some point in time, whatever decision is made by this board and perhaps there is some resolution. >> okay. >> does that work for you? >> yes. you're going to let them submit a set of revised plans? >> because you folks are doing the technical review and saying this is incorrect and this is not right. let them correct the plans for you. >> under what obligation? and then bring them back to the board? i think we've done that.

that goes through the board of appeals. it goes to the office of the board of appeals. >> in terms of conditioning the acceptance of those drawings as reflective of the permit, yes. >> yes. >> but your review of those is separate from that effort. >> i think what you are talking about is if two parties agreed they will revise plans and bring them back into the department for review and they come back at a later date, then that a little different. >> and whether we agree, we happen to agree with those, we could adopt those planes -- plans. >> you can do that if you want. we can do that. >> i'm just saying, this reduces process for all parties. >> this happens when both parties are together. when we look at the code issues, from building and planning on those drawings, i think that's what we normally do. >> okay. >> let's do it.

>> exactly. >> okay. >> okay. let me get ready. [laughter] >> i will ask the architect. how much time do you need to complete this packa to the building department's requirements? >> i think the architectural side is pretty close. we just need to engage the engineer? >> how much time? [laughter] >> sorry. if we can have it for you in a couple of weeks. >> july 11th? >> yeah. sounds good. >> does that work for the appellant's? >> a little later than july 11th. >> pardon me? >> a little later than july 11. >> what do you suggest, madame director? >> the 18th? no there isn't a meeting, actually yes i'm sorry, yes the 18th.

>> make it so. >> does that work for both parties? >> yes. >> you understand, you are ok, sir? you understand what we are saying? >> it sounds like we are being allowed to submit a revised set of drawings per the original permit? >> revised set of drawings that is reflecting what the building department is requiring. >> yes. and then we would submit those before the next hearing date. >> yes. >> yes. there will be a schedule that you can check with our director as to why the time frames are for that. that goes both to the appellant and to the board. >> will we be having a similar preapplication or project review meeting with d.b.i.? or do we give you a normal plan check process, fifth floor?

is that a detailed -- >> you don't need that. ok. >> do we need to clarify for the record what the building department requirements are? >> sure. [laughter] >> these first meetings back and everyone is coming back from vacation and they are always challenging. >> what i would have to do is contact the deputy director of the plan review and ask him if a member of staff can review the drawings for conformity. i know what i want on them as well. it includes a different scope of work and the language on the permit applications are wrong, as well. not just the plans. the description of work which could be modified on the drawings. because of the number of windows that we are dealing with with the notice of violation. i can have plans reviewed. it kind of -- it's ok. i can figure out a way to do --

review the plan. >> i heard earlier, you want structural plants. that's one thing that you want, right? >> yeah. >> okay. >> architectural plans. >> a structural and architectural plans? >> to meet all of the requirements. >> and the scope of work to be determined by d.b.i.? >> i would think they would want to coordinate. >> oh, yeah. i agree. >> will you make your own language for our motion? [laughter] >> let me just repeat it to make sure we are looking for -- will we be continuing them after? >> i would recommend we do, yes. >> continuing them after, so that's the permit holder can submit to d.b.i. structural and

architectural plans that meet all the requirements and the scope of work to be determined by d.b.i. that would be continued until july 18th. >> yes. >> who would be making that motion? >> i will make it. >> okay. president fung, this is for both appeals? >> for clarity, ok, on that motion, commissioners? that motion passes. that -- this matter is continued until july 18th. thank you. >> our agenda is completed. this meeting is adjourned.

>> i want to welcome you here to the civic center hotel. my name is gale dill man, the c.e.o. of community housing partnership. in 2015, this was the second navigation center to open its doors and welcome over 92 individuals living inen ca encampments in the street. this announcement will ensure that before individuals have the opportunity to enter shelter and navigation centers, they can receive vital services and treatments that they so much need and deserve. and on an on going basis. on behalf of all of community housing partnerships, and the 91

navigation center individuals here at this site, we are so excited and honored to introduce our mayor mark farrell. [applause] >> thank you, gale. good morning, everyone. i want to thank you all for joining us here today. as we all know, san francisco and the rest of our country, and cities around our country, are dealing with an opioid crisis hitting our streets. it's unfolding in our neighborhoods and in our sidewalks in front of our very eyes. fighting this fight means that we not only have to use existing programs but if we're really going to solve the issue and make a dent, we have to be creative. we have to come forward with new policies and new programs that will make a difference on our streets. and that is why we're here today. to announce a significant investment in a new, addiction treatment program with our street medicine team.

the street medicine team has long been a part of how san francisco seeks to deal with the health of individuals on our sidewalks and in the streets of san francisco. street medicine team is on the front lines every single day here in san francisco. bringing service and treatment to those who need it here in san francisco. the small but vital team works every single day to care for those were in a traditional clinic or hospital, it's simply not the answer and it's not working. their work is rooted in compassion and acceptance and meeting people where they are. including streets, our shelters and our navigation centers here in san francisco. with this new investment of over $3 million a year, we are adding 10 new staff and increasing resources to focus on the drug

addiction on our streets of san francisco. and to address the opioid epidemic, right here on the streets of san francisco, the team will be expanding the work that they started with the pilot that started last year and expanding this program across the entire city. i am proud that san francisco is going to be the first city in the nation to take this approach. san francisco is a leader in so many areas and once again, we are stepping up with professionals that know how to get job run right. leaders willing to take bold approaches to address the issues confronting san francisco residents and those that need our help on our streets. by providing this medicine out of a traditional clinic setting, we're expanding our outreach capacity and taking every opportunity to help those

individuals that are on our streets suffering from drug addiction. the program, which sometimes i have trouble saying, is an important part of our larger strategy here in san francisco and with our department of public-health, to address those struckelling with addiction. which includes detox to residential treatment services. this investment, let me be very clear about this. this investment will ultimately help save lives. and it will improve the conditions on the streets of san francisco. i want to thank a number of people who have brought this program to light today. first of all, director barbara garcia from our department of public-health. [applause] >> dr. sven for his leadership and ingenuity. we knew he would get the loudest applause and he deserves it.

our department of homelessness and their partnership in leadership as well. and all the other providers and healthcare leaders that are behind me here today that are working so hard every single day in san francisco. to get those that are on our streets with the help that they need. whether it's homelessness or drug addiction or the other issues plaguing those on our streets, our goal in san francisco is to be compassionate and get people off the streets, on to their own two feet and on to better lives. thank you for being here today and with that i love to turn it over to director garcia for remarks. [applause] >> good morning. thank you mayor for your commitment to the effort of treatment access for those suffering from opioid addiction. i'm barbra garcia. i want to acknowledge all of the

d.p.h. staff here that work every day to heal and support san franciscans who are in need of healthcare. i'd like to give them another round of applause. [applause] we know science has proven, for a long time, with many personal stories and the medication assisted treatment works. addiction is a challenge of a lifetime treatment and recovery happen and people do get better. mayor lee, a year and a half ago, asked me is there something else that we can do? we need to reach people on the streets who are clearly suffering and in the grips of addiction. what else can we do? we know that some of our traditional approaches of addiction treatment, that is, waiting for people to be ready to come to us to seek help. it doesn't always work for those suffering from addiction and especially if they are homeless. all of our services are voluntary and we have to develop

care relations to engage people into care and it does take time. but i really want to thank dr. barrie sven who took this challenge for mayor lee and myself and add this service to his existing street medicine team. medication assisted treatment. to the streets where he goes daily providing care to the homeless people in need. that is how this program was born. in the fall of 2016. we have served over 95 people since then bringing medications to fight opioid addictions directly to them on the streets. by expanding the program today, we are first taking a big step towards our ability to combat the opioid addiction in this city. the new funding will allow us to directly serve 250 new individuals but we also know that we can serve more once we get those engagements and those

relationships because in all of our clinics, we can access the service and medication. so this program is a big step forward to saving lives, lost to heroine, fentanyl and methamphetamine addictions and overdoses. homeless people who use drugs are especially vulnerable our health system is adapting going directly to them with compassionate outreach and expertise. we're able to help a group that gets missed in the traditional structure of visits and appointments. our low barrier medication program is just one piece of a city-wide effort to increase treatment. we are also providing emergency rooms at sucker burg general hospital and implementing a new addiction consultant service within our hospital to ensure all physicians at the hospital have access to treatment experts for their patients. the doctors from this service are also here today. so again, i want to thank mayor farrell for supporting all of

our efforts to address those with substance abuse disorders and continuing our efforts to save lives. with that i'd like to introduce dr. barrie sven. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, mayor farrell and director garcia and the city of san francisco for the opportunity to do this. i have been working with people experiencing homelessness in san francisco since 1991. my philosophy in this work is do what works, do what is needed. i didn't come into this work with a preconceived notion of what it is that is going to work. when we see what the problems are, then we develop what are the possible solutions? it doesn't feel like it's a great innovation to say if

people are not able to come into a clinic let's go out and see them where they are. i think what feels like an ininnovation about that is many people have the pre conception or the stereo type that a person experiencing homelessness doesn't care about their health. a person with a substance use disorder isn't very concerned about their health. what we see, day after day, one person after another, is that people are deeply concerned about their health. they may have more compelling concerns. where are they going to eat? where are they going to lay their head down and if they pend on drugs, where will they get drugs to prevent themselves from having severe and awful withdrawals. if we're out there with our team and this is absolutely about a team, not about me as a single physician, doing something, if we're out there as a team we're able to meet people where they are. we see and talk to people about

the harms related to their substance use. we also see what the damage to the community related to that substance use is. and we're talking to people about treatment. you've heard the term bupinorfine. that is our medication that we are primarily using. we're also often recommending and referring and assisting people when it's appropriate, to get to methadone treatments and we're using another medication to treat opioid use disorder. having these medications have changed my attitude towards seeing heroine users. earlier in my career, not that i didn't like heroine users, but i never felt like i had something

to offer. now they're my favorite patient. i have something that can immediately change your recollection with the drugs you use and change what your circumstances are. many people who we see have heard about it and they haven't had the opportunity to talk to medical providers who have expertise and get prescriptions. the basic idea is bring it to people where they are, get people stabilized, and then they're able to move into those next steps because when you are strung out on heroine, when you need to use or else have awful withdrawals, every four to six hours, it's really hard to do anything. what we need to do is provide something that is at least as compelling to people as what is happening to them onhe