seismic upgrade what would we be investing into this? would we keep the pier? have we thought about that at all? >> we have but not in a fully analyzed way. we thought about intermediate leasing where we maximize public entertainment venues the less acres we thought about ways to retain some of the pier and get out to the deep water berth. we don't see a revenue model that paces back from the model of the deep water berth but now that we have so many ship values we are looking where a secondary

cruise may go. we thought about a lot of various options and are responsible for the pier and we were to demolish all the pier it's a cost burden we bear and we have to secure the seawall and make sure that area of the waterfront is strong for earthquake. i think the deep water is value to the site for maritime operations and from a city perspective for emergency response you can see how the site could be extraordinarily valuable but the cost of the pier is what always overtakes the conversation. >> how can it be added to the water transportation system for various uses?

>> there was a report that looked at krfrt -- consistent uses and there were negative numbers and we can dust that off and look at it again if you'd like us to explore that option or prepare a solicitation and see what the market has to say to us and then think of our own options. whatever the commission prefers. >> my position would be for to you come back and bring us solicitation proposal with the guidelines. >> if we lad to invest in the -- if we had to invest in the pier with the seawall and upgrades and sea level rising, what cost

at. money would we have to invest. >> we'll have more on the cost of the linear foot of the waterfront. >> i'd like to step back to the mall plan assessments which are by no means precise but there's the sub structure not holding weight. if you look at the amount of money from parking on the pier about $1.5 million, you can

imagine some investment to allow us to grow. that would buy some time. because it's such a revenue source we kicked around the non-development path to get us to more special events and activating the area. if that's the direction you give us, that's how you leverage the good revenues we're making now to a thoughtful plan that maximizes the maritime value. >> i think we would benefit by understanding what the cost of the substructure and the seismic and upgrading numbers going

forward before the solicitation. the numbers you're presenting today how current are they? >> i think they're from our most recent capital assessment but that's a planning document that says there's no design i remember to remove pier 30, 32 was a number and it's probably higher today. >> can't we do both?

can't we work on the solicitation and you come back? >> i don't think we'll have it by the next meeting but what i'm hearing and synthesizing is we should talk to our maritime group and think of how you want to position the berth and talk to our engineering group to get a better sense of what the costs are and go to the advisory groups and talk about the solicitation criteria. does that make sense? >> just don't take six months. [laughter] >> we might take six months because of the engineering analysis but we'll do the best we can.

>> i'd like a sense of the numbers. what i heard is to the cost is very expensive to retrofit. i think we should get our arms around the numbers first and then look at the correlation between this and lot 330 and that's a better way of analyzing and i believe the last number i heard for 33 0 is roughly $35 million. the value is specially greater, if it is substantially operator

th -- greater than the project is feasible and then we'll know how to go forward. >> fair enough. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 10, new business. >> is there any public comment on new business? commissioners, anything? no new business. >> may i have a motion to adjourn? >> i will make a motion to adjourn in the memory of jeff adachi. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? the meeting is adjourned.

>> san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water. the fireboat station is integral to maritime rescue and preparedness not only for san francisco but for all of the bay area.

>> fire station 35 was built in 1915, so it's over 100 years old. and behind it, we're going to build fireboat station 35. >> so the city's capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must resist sea level rise. >> fireboat station number 35, construction costs are approximately $30 million, and the construction is over complicated because the float, it's being fabricated in china and will be brought to treasure island where the building -- the actual fire station will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 1/2 for installation. >> we are looking at late 2020

for completion of the fireboat float. the historic fire house will remain on the embarcadero. we will still respond out of the firehouse with our fire engine and respond to medical calls and other incidents raratin the district. >> the if a sill has to incorpora incorporate five to 6 feet of sea level rise. it's built on a float that can move up and down as the water level rises, and so it's on four fixed guide piles, so as the seas go up, it wican move and down with the bay. it does have a full range of travel from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements as well as several extra feet for sea level rise in the coming decades. >> the fireboat station float will also incorporate a ramp

for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side or more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then, it's sliding over the top of the float. so then that way, the ramp can, you know, flex up and down like a hinge but also allow for a slight -- a few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, of which there's two, and the utilities, need flexible connections when connecting from the float and back to the building. so interesting power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connections to the float. >> fireboat station 35 will provide room for three boats and one fire boot. >> we would like to establish a

dedicated marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidents. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, we have a lot of kayakers, but we also have a lot of developments on the southeast side, including the warriors stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incidents along all of these new developments. >> there's very few design references for people actually sleeping on the water. what we really looked to were cruise ships, which are, you know, larger structures, several times the size of station 35 but have a lot of people -- a lot of sleeping, but they're really the only good reference point. and so we looked to the cruise ship industry that has kind of an index for, you know, how ma many -- how much acceleration they can accommodate. >> it's very unique. i don't know about any other fire station built on the water in the united states. >> the fireboat's a regional

asset that can not only be used for water rescue and stin wishment of fires, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have a special rigging that we carrie that will contain oil spills -- carry that will contain oil spills until viermsal can come out. this is not a job, it is -- environmental can come out. this is not a job, it's a lifestyle, a community, and we're willing to help people any way we

shissler. kleinm >> clerk: good evening and welcome to the february 27, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by vice president rick swing, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner darryl honda, and we expect

commissioner brad tanner shortly. at the controls is the board's legal assistant, gary quintara. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by agencies that have cases before the board today, can scott sanchez, also representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector, and chris buck with san francisco public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turnoff all phones or electronic devices so they do not sound off during the meeting. meet hold any conversations out in the hallway. i just realized all three cases have been continued, so

basically -- the first case, it's for vote only, and the other two, the parties will get three minutes each. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or scheduling, please speak to staff before or after the meeting or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be down loaded from sfgovtv.org. now we will swear in members of the public who wish to speak. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish the board to give your

testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and answer or affirm. okay. do you answer the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. okay. public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items within the board's jurisdiction but not on the agenda. okay. is there anybody here for public comment? we will move onto item number two, commissioner's comments and questions. okay. we we will move onto item three, adoption of the board minutes from february 20, 2019 minutes. >> president fung: do i have any comments?

>> commissioner lazarus: i move to adopt the minutes. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion is adopted. we will move onto item number one. appeal 18-164 richard haul versus san francisco department of public works department of urban forestry, appealing the issue of sept 6, 2016 of a public works order. this was order number 200294. note, on february 6, 2019, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner tanner absent, to continue this matter so the department can provide for information on the trees and the source of funding for the trees. on february 20, 2019, the board voted 3-0-2, commissioner tanner and commissioner honda absent to continue this appeal

so that commissioner tanner and commissioner honda can participate in the vote. so commissioner honda, did you -- >> commissioner honda: i did watch the video. love hearing commissioner swig. >> clerk: okay. so there is no further testimony by the parties as this matter was continued for the purpose of a vote, so however, commissioners, we do need a motion. >> president fung: any comment? >> vice president swig: who made the motion last time? >> clerk: well, you wanted to make a motion to grant the appeal -- >> vice president swig: oh, grand the appeal with the -- grant the appeal with the condition the trees are still funded and installed within 90 days, i think it was? >> clerk: three months, yes. >> vice president swig: yeah. >> clerk: and i think we designated that they should be replaced with two larger stature trees.

so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the motion and uphold the -- >> commissioner honda: i have a question. so what is the enforcement for them to actually install? what happens if they don't do it within 90 days? >> vice president swig: we arrest mr. buck. >> commissioner honda: i take him off his faceboomy facebook. no, that was a serious question. what happens after 90 days? does the permit get removed? >> i believe someone could probably file a lawsuit. >> commissioner honda: okay. just checking. okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion have vice president swig to grant the appeal and uphold the public works order to replace the

trees with two 36-inch magnolia trees within three months. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. okay. we will now move onto item number five. this is appeal 18-1255, james shissler versus department of public works. -- which will face onto a rear yard with a laundry decks and spiral stairs resulting in less than the 25 foot unrestricted open area required for dwelling unit exposure. this is case number 2016007339. note, on january 23, 2019, the board voted 5-0 to continue

this matter to february 27, 2019, to allow timet for the appellant in consultation with the zoning administrator to prepare findings that will support granting of this variance. welcome, commissioner tanner. we will hear first from, i believe the zoning administrator. do you have anything to add? okay. commissioner -- >> president fung: you write beautifully. >> clerk: mr. shissler. [inaudible] >> commissioner honda: no, no, you first. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this matter? okay. the matter is submitted. >> president fung: the findings by our director with the cooperation and the support of the z.a. fits what i had intended when i brought this

issue up. comments? >> commissioner honda: no. motion? >> president fung: if not. move to grant the appeal. >> clerk: want me to give you some language -- go ahead. >> president fung: and determine on the basis that the five findings. >> clerk: came with the adoption of the conditions, as well, do you want me to include that? >> president fung: yeah. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeal and overturn the zoning administrator's findings of the variance on the basis that the findings support the granting of a variance under planning code section 305-c. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries. >> commissioner honda: was that by error or --

>> clerk: pardon? >> commissioner honda: that was de novo? >> clerk: that was de novo, correct. so we are now moving onto item number six, and i don't see anybody except for joe duffy here -- oh, i'm sorry. >> commissioner honda: the appellant. >> clerk: i apologize. well, i guess it's concerning -- i don't see the permit holder. okay. item number six, appeal 18-145, dan kleinman versus department of building inspect, protesting the issuance of a building permit to ying ngor lee. remain unwarranted structure approximately 8 feet by 12 feet near north property line at rear of building, revert back to original wooden deck.

this is application number 20160164087. note, on january 9, 2019 the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to february 27, 2019 to allow time for d.b.i. to make a site visit to evaluate the site of the retaining walls and with further direction to the permit holder to prepare a set of plans with the construction conditions, explain what happens doing to remedy the concerns raised by the d.b.i. and planning commission . so i think we will hear from mr. duffy first. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm surprised the permit holder's not here. i assumed they were coming. i was actually at the site yesterday. i made a couple of visits to

the site, and i thought they would have been here this evening, but i'll go ahead any way with, like, my update since the last hearing. the parties did get together and did formulate an agreement which i believe is signed and mr. kleinman can speak to that, but there were issues between the -- mr. kleinman and the permit holder. they met -- i went out there a couple of times, and i have reviewed the plans that were issued to comply with the notice of violation. i'm happy enough with them. i would encourage the permit to be upheld at this point. we're also receiving some documentation from the neighborhood association who are venting their frustration at the blighted building and how long it's been sitting, so i think they did have some concerns about the facade of the building. part of the permit that's under appeal does allow for the removal of the stucco of the building and a replacement of

stucco and new windows. that's part of the permit, so i think at this point, there will be some inspection issues that the contractor will have to deal with. i've explained that to him. there may have been some work that was done without inspection. we'll have to get to the bottom of that, but without the suspension lifted on the permit, we can't really do that. but as far as i'm concerned, i would hope that if the permit is upheld and the work starts that they'll get it done in an efficient matter, that these people can get on with their lives. this building is an eye sore. the way they started this process is wrong, there's no doubt about that. they went about it wrong. they annoyed everybody, including ourselves at d.b.i. we have a revoked permit, but i do think in these case when's they do get through a permit process on a proper set of plans that is reviewed by building and planning, we end up with a decent product, and

the next thing is to get them going again and get things moving along. i did e-mail the building director and copy the conditions on the blighted building, so i'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. >> i have a couple of questions. so even though went do have a set of plans, they have prepared a set of plans? >> yeah, i have a prepared set of plans. that was part of the problem last time. they have done through a pretty rigorous drawings because they've got three sets of conditions, building unproposed. the planning wanted that, so we've actually three conditions on the plans, so i think the plans are a pretty good set. we are going to be paying attention to this project and

if it is upheld. we think there are other issues, and if there are, we will deal with them in the field. i have warned the arc tech that i was deealing with, mr. chow. to i want thank the neighbors being very understanding on this. i think they did get their issues addressed in the agreement, and there was waterproofing that we're going to have to check, flooshing details and some of the money that they've spent on professional fees. i think we've heard that last night. i believe he's already been reimbursed with that. >> commissioner tanner: and then, the original facade, is that going to require notice to the neighbors and continue that, will that be a separate permit? >> it's basically replacing current stucco with new stucco.

the facade doesn't change except for the new stucco and the new windows. some of the neighbors thought it had been deconstructed and removed, but it hadn't been. the garage doors are actually still intact in the building. >> commissioner tanner: and what was your observations with regards to safety. i know part of our concern was with the excavation work that had been done, especially during the rainy season. it seems like nothing's been done so far, what would be your opinion of the progress or lamb t there of at the site? >> it's been vacant for a couple of years. i wouldn't say it was top quality, but it met the requirements of the board. i explained that yesterday at the site meeting that if this permit is upheld, before any work takes place, d.b.i. are going to go out there and make sure, what did we see, what did

we not see? in answer to your question, the building at the minute looks safe. and i -- mr. kleinman's not getting any visible damage to his property, which is telling. if he sees any cracking, movement, i believe we're going to have monitoring in place so if there is any movement, that is going to be addressed in the agreement. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> vice president swig: so i'm really happy that they reached an accord. on mr. kleinman's behalf, i'm cynical on this. just the behavior is bad. >> commissioner honda: correct. >> vice president swig: secondly, in our first hearing, no brief was filed, no plans were offered. i believe in the -- in the first hearing, that there was a reference to the fact that work had stopped because the project

sponsor had put the building up for sale which leads me to believe -- this is conjecture on my part -- but it leads me to believe that they're out of money or they don't want to put any further funds in it. and now, today, once again, we didn't receive any plans, which was a direct direct request and requirement for this hearing, i believe. and yet again, the project sponsor hasn't shown up, so it's all well and good that an agreement has been reached. but my cynical nature latinas me to ask a question, the question that was asked in the previous item, what's the level of accountability here? >> i agree. i agree. >> vice president swig: yeah. so what is -- how -- how are we going to protect the public in this case, the appellant, for

obvious breaches of a lot of stuff if indeed the agreement is not held and if -- if the -- the permit holder or the developer doesn't show up like he hasn't shown up today and he hasn't delivered stuff to us previously. i'm very iffy on this one. >> all i can do is try. i went out there yesterday, and i spoke to him. regardless of the plans for the brief, i think we were looking for the approved plans. there is a language barrier. i find it sometimes trying to get through, there's a lot of agreement, but i don't totally understand sometimes that they fully agree with me. i, like, repeated myself several times to him yesterday

about several things, but i agree with your concerns. you're welcome to do whatever action you see. what i'm just telling you is my updates were -- i'm surprised they're not here. as a matter of fact, i e-mailed them and said where are you five minutes ago? this is getting -- maybe they need representation. maybe they need someone that can represent them properly. all i know is when i e-mailed him, and went out to him with the site, they came out with a neighbor. why they're not here, i don't know and it is a good question. >> vice president swig: yeah. in the last hearing, i found myself getting pretty upset at the general negligence of -- come on, it's been going on for two years. the abuse of the neighborhood, not to mention the next-door

neighbor, and -- and -- and the general attitude and unresponsiveness to this body for providing the information necessary for us to make a decision. and -- and then to follow up -- to have a follow-up hearing where we asked for specific information, not to have that information, and now, not to show up. my inclination predisposed and waiting for proper testimony, of course was i was prepared to humpty dumpty, which was to put it back the way it was before on a direction like that, with a developer who has not -- who indicated well, we're going to sell it before we finish it. basically, that's what i heard.

where's the teeth here? where -- where's the -- where is the teeth here? and where is the appellant -- although they have a wonderful agreement, and they have trusted their neighbor to perform, what happens if the pattern of performance continues, shall we say? >> if you upheld the permit and it was returns to d.b.i.? well, our performance would end up enforcement and dedication. i saw for sale sign on the property, but i didn't see them. i agree when whith what you're saying. >> i understand it has to do with the j-o-b that you were involved with.

we had one a couple of weeks ago where if you say no, you lose, if you say yes, you lose. i feel the same way on this one because if we deny the permit, then -- and we find for the appellant in the face of an agreement, again, there are no teeth, the poor neighbor still has an unfinished building with no resolution. what is the resolution? >> we still have the building permit in place. we could refer it to the city for prosecution. we have a litigation committee to go to the city attorney's office. that would be something that we would have an option on our notice of violation, which is completely separate from the permit. the permit is to comply with it, but the notice of violation

not complying with, we could refer it to the city attorney's office. >> commissioner honda: sorry for popping in. this property has hit the radar for a lot of reasons. i think our best option is d.b.i. unless we want to see a blank canvas next to the house for the next couple of years. >> megan told me they were going to do about it. >> commissioner honda: they didn't have much to say the last time they were here. >> maybe you should here from mr. kleinman or mr. -- whatever, when you're done with me. they've met me twice out there, and i encouraged them to get together and do an agreement, which i was told they did. in my opinion, in my work, getting permits -- if the permit -- if the plans are okay, and they seem to be, and the permit is what it's supposed to take care of, i'm more in favor of it going ahead

and trying to force them on our end of getting this work done and getting the neighbors off our backs. it's ugly sitting out there in the middle of the block. >> vice president swig: should we be concerned since the property is for sale. it wasn't a falsehood, they, in fact, have the property for sale. what should we be worried about in the neighborhood on behalf of the appellant? would they be successful if we say we'll hold up -- not hold up, we'll go with the agreement. what should we be concerned with because if a sale goes through -- if another agreement goes through and a sale goes through, what happens in the hands of another owner may go for another two years.

>> well, d.b.i., from my department's view, an agreement between a permit holder and neighbor wouldn't have anything to do with me. that's not my job. that's a legal question, so any agreements between them is their own agreement. it's sm it's nothing to do with d.b.i. >> vice president swig: no, i understand. but if the building was sold, a new buyer would not necessarily be interested in doing what the previous owner had solicited a permit. >> commissioner honda: they have no choice because california's full disclosure, so anything that's pertaining to the property would have to be disclosed during the transaction. >> vice president swig: i understand the disclosure piece, but that doesn't mean that there's going to be follow through by a new owner who may have a complete separate new vision for the property. >> commissioner honda: but the notice of violations -- >> vice president swig: oh, the notice of violations will run

with the property. >> the agreement is between the current owner and the neighbor. >> commissioner tanner: one more question. sorry to belabor this. you mentioned that they have plans, but part of the work they'll have to do is unwind some of the work that's been done on the site. so the plans reflect that unwinding or there's more work that needs to be done to ascertain the -- >> no. the plans show three conditions and part of the wording is to up do unpermitted work. they're going to have to undo a deck and some other stuff that planning required. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i share the frustration that senior building inspector joe duffy expressed, as well as

vice president swig. this process has not been followed by the project sponsor, the property owner. it was very frustrating for our staff, our enforcement staff, it was like pulling teeth to get plans that we believe accurately depicted to the best of your knowledge the existing -- best of our knowledge the existing conditions. the scope of work calls for the facade, the stucco to be replaced, otherwise maintains at it was before, with windows replaced, match those that were there previously. i think it's been frustrating for everyone, for the neighbors, up through this point. it's more frustrating when they don't engage with the board's process, follow what the board

has asked them to do, show up at the hearings, file brief, i and i do have concerns that they will not follow the issues. but at least d.b.i. will have the enforcement process to compel compliance from for any owner or any future owner. but otherwise, available for any questions. >> commissioner honda: you look nice and relaxed. >> feeling very good. thank you. >> i just received an e-mail to say from the permit holder, someone drove into his truck on his way here, but he's running late, so i just got that message. >> clerk: okay. should we hear from mr.

kleinman? >> i was going to say we have an agreement from mr. lee indicating that he had three things he was going to address. when they finish construction, any stucco wood or paint that was damaged on our side would be brought back to the condition it was before the construction. i am not that naive in that i realize that that agreement and 1.85 will get me a cup of coffee at pete's. what we're concerned about or what we hope is that none of this is done without d.b.i.'s

agreement. two issues. one, we're trying to avoid obviously spending $400 an hour on legal costs, which it may have to come down do, which i agree with the board in a that we don't have a lot of confidence in them completing what they're supposed to do. the important issue is none of those are cosmetic. the facade in the front, the stucco, that's wonderful, but what we're concerned about is the structural integrity of our home. these are things that are significant beyond just their violations. these are safety issues, and that's why i'm relying on the city to ensure that we have a safe building. that's really all i have to say. i have a copy of the agreement. i don't know if that's worth entering into anything or just keepin keepi keeping. >> commissioner honda: are you fairly confident with the

agreement that you made with the property owner? >> the parts with teeth, yet. >> clerk: president fung, do you want the agreement? >> president fung: there's nothing we can do with that. and hopefully, they fulfill their part. >> well, if push comes to shove, it may come down to legal enforcement. >> president fung: understood. >> commissioner honda: but hopefully not, and hopefully, when it gets done you'll have a nice home. >> a safe house. >> commissioner honda: a safe house. >> clerk: so i assume we're not going to wait for the permit holder. >> president fung: no, we're not. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: i'll make a motion -- >> president fung: well, just a quick comment, commissioners. you know, i think the frustrations we felt on the previous one was definitely -- the previous case was a loose

situation. the only partial win that can occur over here is they complete this, get out of everybody's lives. >> vice president swig: yeah. >> president fung: and i believe that if it would provide any level of comfort to the appellant, i'm pretty sure that the building department are going to ensure, are going to ask for certain things. they'll probably have to x-ray where the reinforcement is. they want to make sure that they put in the appropriate -- we discussed that last time, and things like that. i -- just from a professional point of view, i'm not too worried about the retaining wall itself if that level of fo foresight had been put in. >> commissioner honda: i concur. this was similar to the project

that was in twin peaks. no one wants to be next to a certi cemetery of a building for ten years. >> president fung: do you have a motion? >> commissioner honda: yeah. motion to deny the appeal. >> clerk: i recall language time inspector duffy said maybe some language should be cleaned up about the deck. d do you think that's necessary? >> commissioner honda: i thought the deck was addressed. >> clerk: well, the language in the permit was revert back to original deck and he suggested saying legalize the deck, but that would be granting the appeal -- >> president fung: mr. duffy, could you clarify that. >> yeah. joe duffy, d.b.i. there was some questions about the plans being shown correctly on a window and a deck. we didn't have the drawings, so

i think the drawings did take care of that. >> commissioner honda: the last time, they said there was a deck, they'd restore it to the previous, but there was really no deck there prior. >> there are photographs on the plans that show that existing condition. sorry you weren't given them. that's the issue and the missing part. >> president fung: so you don't feel the need to have that? >> no, i think the permit's addressed. i do think in this case, if this permit is upheld, we are going to have to go out there and get, you know, as you said, make sure the inspections were done right. if there's anything else, we want to give it a good once-over. but i think they're in good shape. >> commissioner honda: you warned them they should not come before this board again. >> i know. i've said that -- or me. they're on the radar. >> commissioner honda: okay. so deny the permit -- >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from

commissioner honda to did he pa nye -- deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes. and one last thing, we will be adjourning to august (1) five, and that concludes the hearing. >> commissioner honda: thank you.

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be

here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area.

>> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have

volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come >> >> >> my name is jean alexander. i'm an attorney in the san francisco city attorney's office. i supervise the tax team, giving tax advice to the treasurer, tax collect or, drafting tax legislation. the thing i remember my mother telling me as a child is

that you need to be prepared to take care of yourself and i knew that i wanted to be able to do something that i enjoyed. i didn't expect anybody to give me anything because nobody ever gave her anything and i also i always saw her fighting for the things that she wanted in life for herself and for her children. >> my name is jasmine flores. i am working as an admin assistant in the city attorney's office. i have always enjoyed the tasks that i have been given. on the days i show up and work on my own is empowering. for me, happiness in being more involved in a person-to-person interaction. my dream jobs includes being a

physician, paramedic, firefighter, working with animals with the public. on a personal level with self improvement. my sister is the biggest influence in my life because she taught me to go forward with what makes you happy rather that what makes you the most money. >> i graduated from law school in 1972 at a time when there was a beginning to be an influx of women in the legal profession and tried criminal cases for about 10 years, treatment for delinquent operating programs, government budgets, analyzed fiscal legislation. i came to the san francisco city attorney's office and i have been here for about 12 years advising on tax matters. i did just about anything you can think of. some things that lawyers do

and some things that lawyers don't do. >> i'm from the mission in san francisco. i have grown up there and i have lived there pretty much my whole life. living there, i do see other women, some of them older, some of them look just like me like my age and a lot of them work nanny jobs, child care jobs, retail jobs. i don't know, it seems kind of like a reminder that you are kind of lucky to be where you are, i guess. just when you haven't gone so far at all. i want them to go on maybe go on an interview that's more challenging that they think that they can't get that job. you know, just to kind of challenge and surprise themselves when they

get that job and feel better. >> there had been women practicing law for many years, but there were so few of them that a lot of the issues hadn't really come into play and some of them worked out and some are still being resolved like equal pay and women in lawfirms and making sure women get fair assignments and in the decision making and working with law firms. i consider myself more of a beneficiary of all the women that fought really difficult battles along the way.

>> >> >> welcome and thank you so much. thank you for the beautiful tunes. it is hard to stop dancing. that we have some wonderful dignitaries here today who want to speak with us and share. my name is dr. ellen hammersley. i'm the vice president of client services at catholic charities. it is my honor and pleasure to introduce to you today our c.e.o. she is a light of inspiration to all of a sudden catholic charities. her grades and leadership is an inspiration to all