point, there can be a corridor that can provide access to the rear unit, by the legality -- which the legality of it is unknown at this point. again, there's no easement on our lot. but having done so many plans in this town. you rarely see me before you guys. every time, we try hard to reach an agreement and that's why we are never before you. that's what we done in this case. we met with neighbors on all side. mr. vendetti also filed an appeal, and we performed meetings with him and his engineer. we made them feel comfortable about the plans and they dropped their appeals. we did the same with miss myers, and we offered to

provide an easement through our building. on the first floor plan, you see we have a path all the way to the front. this easement, if provided, it will devalue our building and it will raise the value of miss myers' building. that offer is still on the table. it has always been on the table from the beginning. however, miss myers and her son are asking for compensations beyond our acceptance, and this is why our deal is far from being reached. again, i strongly feel that the permit was issued correctly. i spoke to mr. pang, david pang, the plan checker on the

project. mr. myers spoke to him, and told him there was an easement, and got him confused, and it was routed to the fire department for review. california law does not allow any egress to a neighboring property unless there's an easement recorded. there's no easement recorded as you can see on the title report. so my question is for this body to approve our plans and allow us to move this project forward. i'm available for any questions or comments you may have. thank you. >> commissioner tanner: excuse me, sir. can i just have a question. can you provide the agreements that you did reach with the other appellant, and what were you offering mrs. myers, what were you offering to negotiate with her? >> with mr. vendetti, he was concerned that we were going to underpin his foundation. we went out there, dug a test pit.

he asked us to get an engineer of his choice involved and we offered to pay for it. we've been in touch with him for the last two weeks, three weeks, and details have been flying back and forth between the two engineering firms, and both firms feel comfortable with this proposal. there was a privacy concern, that we said we would comply with the request. there was a drainage concern that they wanted us to allow some of the drain yaj frage fr roof to go onto our property. we agreed to do that. there was a concern about the building after construction doesn't move, and we have agreed to that. we have promised that any damage to his building, we would take care of it right

away and correct the project if -- if any damage comes up. and i just want to point out that we are architects, engineers. we will permanently be on top of this project, not just the contractor and the owner of a lot that has no clue about construction. we will be here at this lot every single day and -- >> president fung: okay. i think they answered your question sufficiently. t tap -- currently, the tenant is going to our lot which has all kind of trip hazards. at night time, it's all mud and that kind of stuff. we are providing a hallway, well-lit. we have offered to install an

interc intercom for them, and provide an easement, but that has not been enough. >> commissioner tanner: and in the appellant's brief, she stated that the statement from you guys that it was only for emergency access, that this would only be emergency entrance and access. what's your claim? >> that's not true. what we have offered is to allow them access if they agree to drop their appeal and their lawsuit, but we don't -- we're not there, we're not close. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning

department fu department. >> president fung: you're acting? >> yeah. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject permit proposes two dwelling units. the site permit was submitted in december 2015 after actually the previous owner had purchased the property and developed this application. it went through a neighborhood notice at the end of 2016. during that time, there was a discretionary review filed by the appellant, and i believe it was probably november or december of 2016. the schedule for hearing for discretionary hearing before the planning commission on february 26, 2017, then continued to march 16, 2017, then continued to april 27, 2017 and then continued again to july 13, 2017. at the final hearing, the planning commission heard the item and did not take discretionary review. at that time, it was noted some of the concerns raised by the appellant being the easement

issue is not under the purview of the planning department or the planning commission. that's a private matter that they must resolve separately, given that their -- from all research that's been done, there is no easement that's recorded on the property. the project is completely code compliant. last year, a new owner purchased the property and had the subject site permit issue and it is brought before you. again, the issues that have been raised here largely not planning code related. they are more civil related. the appellant did site concerns of a project under the hill at 999 texas. that is not on appeal. that project has just submitted the p.p.a., preliminary project assessment, a couple months ago to clarify a misunderstanding of the appellant. from my review of the p.p.a.,

it is compliant, so under the home-sf, they're allowed one additional story, so height is measured from the front property line. they have four floors, a 40-foot height limit. they have a fifth story that they are proposing. so to clear, they are not seeking two additional stories, they are seeking one initial story on the p.p.a., but again, that is not before you, but i do want to clarify that for the record and for everyone's information. i think that was all i have -- and it was discussed -- the previous project sponsor did make a similar offer of access

through their property. they said they can provide the access but not necessarily the changes on the appellant's property. they have to do steps or something to get down to their property, that wouldn't be part of that offer, but it seems if they had many continuances, they weren't able to get to a resolution in the materials submitted by the project sponsor, they said they weren't able to get a clear answer from the appellant of what was desired or wanted. and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> vice president swig: so just a macroquestion, but it's tied to the situation of this case. in the case where a house was built 100 years ago, just pick a number, and when an area

might be farm land, there wasn't the urban in-fill that existed today, and then, the urban in-fill occurred, and still, in this situation where there's a cottage in the back or another building that was built in the back. 100 years ago, who was worrying about access to the street? you are more worried about the cows that might attack you while you were interrupting their feed. but what happens in situations -- what's your experience in situations like this where the -- there's a very historic precedent of a residence behind another residence and things like lot lines may not have even been in existence, and then suddenly, they are, and then, suddenly,

you know, 100 years passes, and 40 years passes, and as this -- the appellant has owned the house for 40 years. and then suddenly, it actually matters. how have you dealt with these things historically in and i'm sure this is not the first time. >> first, it would be a question if there's actually an easement. in the 100 or so years that this has been going on, was there ever an easement actually developed in you know, at the end of the day when i was to develop my -- when i want to develop my property, you have to figure it out on your own. so that's one possibility. so another possibility, there's been an offer but they haven't

been able to reach an groemt. it sounds like the lawsuit was filed yesterday. this has been going on quite sometime. i think the lawsuit could have been filed any other day other than the day before the hearing. maybe we would have had a resolution if they filed their lawsuit two-plus years ago. when this project was first moving forward, it would have been great to get a resolution from the courts. but now, we're here to try to resolve this, and it looks like there's an offer on the table. i think this is a more appropriate item for the department of public inspection, so i would toss it over. >> vice president swig: i'm going to toss the appellant a softball, and i plan to ask the appellant when it became clear

that these issues were in place, why didn't he file something then? what i'm kind of interpreting from your answer is that the property owner really got a free pass for 40 years, and there was always an owner of that property that was next to them, and yeah, there was no issue of having a trail there, and -- but then suddenly, the free pass ended when -- when the land changed hands and then real life kicked in? >> yeah. that seems to be from the information presented. there's no evidence there was ever an easement recorded. if it really was an argument over a prescriptive easement, why wasn't that claim brought

sooner rather than yesterday. >> vice president swig: yeah. i understand thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the department of building inspection. >> commissioners, joe duffy. d.b.i. the permit to erect three stories, no basement, type a family building was issued on d.b.i. on the 16 of january 2019, suspended by d.b.i. pending the appeal on the 30 of january 2019. it's been through quite a lot of city departments, as you know. fire department, planning, d.p.w., p.u.c. it went back and forth a couple of times to different agencies. from what i see, it looks like it's a properly issued site permit. there would be an addenda process as we know to bring in

the structural drawings, architectural and technical, interesting, plumbing permits, and i did hear the comments about the easements, and i think the city attorney, brad's comments were relevant in that, you know, generally, a recorded easement would need to be shown to d.b.i. if there was one. i don't think there was one in place as you've heard. it's unfortunate, we deal with these situations a lot, where for many, many years, something's existed. i've dealt with it just in general for complaints where someone's been using a gate for a long time. the recorded easement and that process is generally -- we would refer that could civil. it is a civil issue. my understanding today, if there is going to be an easement, the city then are

party to that easement, as well. they've sort of cleaned up the process with the city attorney's office. that easement has to go to the city attorney's office because we're a party to it, but that wasn't always the case. i just thought i'd mention it because it's a process, and i spoke to people in the county storn's office regarding new easements. that wouldn't apply here unless they agree to a new easement, and we would then be a party on the new easement. i think the engineering company, they probably do monitoring of the existing buildings on either side. that's always a good idea. i didn't hear that mentioned. i would hem that. i think they -- recommend that. i think they do that any way, but that would alleviate any concerns for adjacent buildings for movement, the monitor during the construction.

other than that, i'm available for questions. >> vice president swig: so mr. duffy, are you saying that i offer which has been made by the permit holder to the neighbor is a pretty good offer because in your experience where there's no easement, there's no easement, and they have the right to build what they want to, especially if it's compliant? is that your point of view? >> i would agree with that. i've seen this happen many

times. if you think you've got to go to the courts, that's what 400 macallister is for. >> vice president swig: and secondarily, are you saying -- i want to get really clear on this, that with this benevolent offer, as i see it, that would allow what the appellant wants to have happen, there still is -- what are the odds of the city attorney going along with the permit holder's request to create an easement? is it going to be an immediate rubber stamp because it's viewed as a benevolent situation that would cure a problem or is there going to be an issue with that?

>> i've personally never been involved with creating an easement with the city attorney's office. both parties agree they're probably going to review it to make sure the city aren't going to be liable somewhere down the line. they're going to look at it for any issues that the city might be brought up on later. maybe i'm wrong on that one. >> vice president swig: so again, it's a -- you see this as an offer that does point have to be made under what you see. and second of all, that even though the offer's being made, it's not an automatic rubber stamp, but the chances are it's going to be done. >> yes.

i saw comments to mr. pang, and what i did see was that mr. pang had reviewed these permits. and senior inspector mark wall brought up these issues. it sounds like they were responded to, but again, the recorded easement is the issue that we don't have one. maybe that is why d.b.i. had to go ahead and approve it. had there been a property easement documentation provided, it may have -- then we probably would have maybe had more questions on that to make sure it was going to work. >> vice president swig: thank you very much for the constructions. t t >> commissioner tanner: i have just a few questions. it seemed like the proposed walkway would not comply with building code. i heard it as him saying there needs to be an open air egress for that back unit. is that accurate or what's

being proposed by the project sponsor of the hallway, if you will, as the easement, is that meeting the building standard for egress for that cottage? >> the new corridor that's going to be created? >> commissioner tanner: yeah, that corridor. >> i don't have the plans in front of me, but it would have to meet building codes before it's approved. even if it's a mistake on the plans, and the engineer can address that. it has to make code. we're not going to allow a new noncode compliant condition. we would never do that. >> commissioner tanner: if this case -- the easement's a civil matter, they've got to work it out, but they don't work it out. is that they could occupy it as a family? what ends up happening with

that? >> it could potentially be an issue. and that's why the civil process will get to that point. they probably not going to -- probably going to have to do it on their property, and that can be very difficult and very expensive. many, many times a complaint will suddenly come into d.b.i., and it might be after this new building's built. someone could slam the door on the way out and say oh, d.b.i., you have a building behind this. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. can you come forward on this, please? is there anybody else for public comment? okay. just one person. you have three minutes. >> thank you.

you guys will have to bear with me. i just got back from the dentist, so if i stumble over my words. i come to you as a concerned citizen. i'm a friend of max and elena's. all my life in san francisco, born and raised. i recently came to the understanding of the easement. as mr. swig over here said, this idea that our neighbors had a free pass for a while, and now we have a developer that is coming in, proposing many units, not just a 1058 texas unit, but many units in our neighborhood with the history of back and forth, i really just kind of want to

make the point that in a city that is like ours that has an affordable housing crisis like it does now, it's very important that these situations, this back and forth that we're having be resolved immediately. there are so many underpinning issues that come up between whether there was an easement or not. and i just want to make the statement if there is money in the game, then we should actually pay attention to what kind of -- who stands to gain anything. so for my neighbors over here, max and elena, i'd really very much like to state with the crisis that we have in our city with affordable housing, i think that it's very important

for -- you have to excuse me for a second while i collect my thoughts. it's very important that -- we really understand who kind of the little guy in the matter is and who has everything to gain and who has everything to lose. c.f. development has stepped in, say they want to develop this property, has stepped in and said that max and elena don't have an easement when they've been there for 40 years. that is not the case, and i think that they -- they do have a right to their property, especially if, in the back lot, this house has been here for 100 years. we should really take into consideration who has everything to lose and who has everything to gain. my neighbors have everything to lose, sia consulting has

everything to gain. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. we will now hear from the appellant. >> president fung: i'm sorry. can we have one minute? >> clerk: sure.

>> clerk: welcome back to the march 6, 2019 board of appeals hearing. we are on item number 6-a, appeal 19-008, and we are on the rebuttal portion for the appellant, so if the appellant can come forward, please. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i want to address some misunderstanding and misconceptions. there a there is no benevolent offer on the table. my mother is -- we're not harassing these developers.

my mother's now going to spend her savings to get her easement perfected. this is her retirement. we've been trying to negotiate with every developer all of this time, and now, we can't anymore. there definitely is no offer of an easement because if there was, it would look like this. can we put that up. >> clerk: the overhead, please. >> the overhead, please, this was an open court egress. that was offered to us by the first developers until they realized it would cost them $400,000 to offer this to us. this is why they're not offering an easement because they would have to follow building and fire court and make it open air. section 1028.1 and section

103.0 makes it clear that the easement has to be open to the sky. there is no benevolent offer to us. they want an enclosed corridor which they cannot get if they were to actually give us the easement. they never did give us the easement, so this is an e-mail from bauman after he got the -- after he got the hold lifted. in the e-mail, it says we will provide emergency access to the cottage on the rear of the property, and once construction begins, the at the point tents will not be able to -- tenants will not be able to use that access. in california, easements ripens when they've been used for five years. that pathway has been in

service since 1905. they can sue us for quiet title if title change, but they won't, because they realize we have a privilege tiescriptive . it's also something that the developers were extremely aware of when they purchased the property. they waited four months after their purchase to contact us. they knew very well about this e. a, so let's not -- easement, so let's not characterize them as victims of us. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> vice president swig: so the question i promised i would ask you, if this is also, why do you wait until the 11th hour on this on this hearing to go to

court on this matter to perfect the easement? why didn't you go before now, because we wouldn't be sitting here at all -- and i'm not doubting you, sir. >> that's an excellent question, and the reason is because it is so expensive to enforce your easement rights, and we have preferred to try to accomplish that through negotiations. negotiations brought down last week and because of this impending date, it's forced our hand and now we have to file a lawsuit. i should also say that the developers have always had the chance to file a lawsuit and quiet title and -- and challenge our easement claims this entire time, as well, and keep us from using their property. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder.

>> so i kind of agree with commissioner swig, and this was my thought. the project was filed to planning department in 2015. i'm sure neighborhood meetings was done before that filing of that date. now we are two years later, you know, we are still in this position. they could have filed a claim back then to go through the superior court and resolve this, but that's not the case. every step of the way, there has been a continuance request. they have found a way to extend this property and hold this property, and we have -- you know, i'm saying this on the record, our easement offer is valid. we are willing to give an easement, but it needs to be

regional. the rest of the term -- reasonable. the rest of the terms have to be reasonable. one other thing i wanted to mention is that any vacant lot in this town sitting for 100 years is always used by -- by the neighborhood, whether people going through it, whether people put their gar g badge cans on it, park -garbag cans on it, park their cars on it. mr. myers and his mom have plenty of opportunity for access to their house. it's not a project that requires extensive retaining walls. they have -- with minor excavation, i know it's going to cost money, but if they

don't want to go through their lot, they can provide access to their house in the back. again i'm asking for you to allow the permit -- uphold the permit and allow this project to go forward. >> vice president swig: so on your plans, i see a door on the front of the house that's adjacent to the appellant's house. i see a passage way that goes the length of the house, connects to stairs. is that your prescription for an easement that will allow access from their -- >> that's right. >> vice president swig: okay. so then i also -- and this is where we -- we are at a handicap, and i acknowledged my handicap at the beginning hearing, so this is not new news. it would seem to me without a

legal person in this area, that that is a good exclusion. that a semi exclusive or an intended passage way that would be available to them 24 hours a day with a buzzer and everything would be a perfect solution to this. however, then, the appellant puts up on the screen -- now, this can't happen. it has to be open air, and here is the -- you know, here's the situation. so the risk that we have here, and i have to turn to my city attorney yet again, or maybe he doesn't have the answer is if, indeed, we go in this direction, and we say well, it looks like a passage way, looks like an access that's reasonable to solve the situation, and then, we find out -- and we approve that, and we find out, lo and behold, and the appellant is correct, and

you have to have an open aired court that -- it's really clear that separates the building, what happens -- what happens then? >> unfortunately, i can't answer that question today. that was the first time i've seen that code provision myself. i don't know if the building department has any opinion on that. you can probably ask inspector duffy when he comes up. >> vice president swig: then let me turn to you as the developer who needs to answer this question. have you researched that claim from the appellant, and what is your interpretation of that little paragraph the appellant put up about the open air thing? i like your resolution. i think it's a fair resolution, and if it can be clarified in writing that it's exclusive or semi exclusive and can never be obstructed for that right,

that's a fine solution for me, but we also can't authorize something that's against the law. what's your opinion on that? >> having been in this city for the last 30 years, i have done dozens of projects that have exits to adjacent lots. we have one right now project on 24th street that is exactly the same thing. we have a house in the front and building in the back and we provide access. building code changes every three years. if approximate -- if this thing drags on, and the building code changes or interpretations of the code change, that's beyond my approval, but i -- based on my experience and the permit that we have -- similar permit

in the -- if the easement is granted, it could be done. >> vice president swig: and again, you're hearing me, i think it's logical. but the other peace of logical real life that doesn't work for me and with that logic, is that easement or that passage way that you are proposing turns into a construction zone for about 18 months to two years. >> right. >> vice president swig: and so what do we do about getting those residents down that easement that you're going to benevolently authorize and work on in that 1.5 or two-year period? >> yeah. we also own the two lots behind this lot fronting texas street that they mentioned. i'm proud to propose a home-sf with affordable housing on that

site. that progressicess is going to5 years to get a permit. we have offered to build a code complaint set of stairs that -- compliant set of stairs that provides their tenant to the texas street. that's another offer that we have made. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> commissioner tanner: and proposed adding monitoring perhaps of the adjacent buildings. seems like you worked out with the appellant who withdrew some monitoring and work to underpin it. do you have a similar proposal for the subject appellant? >> every job, we have monitoring. we don't -- we don't put a shovel on any lot without doing this monitoring whether the neighbors want it or not.

>> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there anything further mr. sanchez or mr. duffy? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. again. just in reviewing the plans and the brief with the section 1028 and section 1030, i mean, the language in the code would say that you can't come out of, you know, 1060 mississippi and go into 1058 and then go underneath that building. but that -- that passage way that's on there is not the easement. it's not -- it's part of the approval at 1060 mississippi. if it becomes part of the easement. that will need to be presented to d.b.i. for code compliance. it could be an issue, but what i would suggest, they do a preapplication meeting and try

to get some alternative from d.b.i. to approve it if it's not fully code compliant to maybe sprinklering it. it's an issue, but i think it's a workable issue in relation to the code. there's always -- and commissioner fung would know this that d.b.i. does have the flix -- we also have -- have the application. we also have some other mitigating -- because the code does say you shall not enter a building that's not open to the sky. these plans that i'm looking at that were in the brief, the east isn't there. this is just a passage way. >> president fung: okay. it could be the easement. >> it could be the easement.

now, what the appellant said, it's not going to make code, i'd have to agree with them, but they'd have to offer something other than section 1028 but that's in the building code. >> vice president swig: should we -- thanks very much for that enlightenment and that suggestion. should that process continue about of we say "ayea or nay tonight or should we continue it until pe know what we want to achieve? >> this is going that's on these drawings here for a reason. i can't say to hold it any longer it's going to benefit anybody. if this thing goes -- if we've

now got a lawsuit -- i don't know that as couple of weeks is going to help. >> president fung: well, this is the second means of egress. >> so it's only a two story building with accessory dwelling units. you could go into the rear y d yard, but it's only two stories and three units. if you put sprinklers in somewhere where because it's not just open to the sky, but you've got all sorts of egress -- panic hardware, there's all sorts of things that mitigate the actual strict reading of the coat that you can give us sng something that meets the code. otherwise, as i just told the

appellant, if it this can't be code compliant, then they have to do it through their building. that's the condition that commissioner tanner brought up, like the developer says, we're not doing this, where does that leave these people that own this property? and i sympathize with them very much. >> vice president swig: as a final follow up question, this was what i was going to ask. is it code compliant? yes, we could ask this, but we really want to take into consideration the appellant's position, and maybe we can save them money if we do it correct. how do we get this then resolved so that in any motion tonight that would approve

this -- these plans that what you just suggested, the plannic -- the panic hardware, the fire sprinklers, all that stuff is really put in there so the developer can't say -- not that they ever would -- never mind? >> i don't know. i really think that it's more than what i would be up here for. it all sounds good, but how do we make them do it? suggestion? but that's not enough on a decision. i would just say to the developer, as well. one thing, i didn't state it earlier. we had some conversation with the developers, and i see this pretty good on the developers, as well. these people have been there a long time. you're the visitor for a while. you know, do everything right, all the things that need to be done. this just needs to get figured

out, obviously but i don't know how to make it happen. >> commissioner tanner: just to make it clear, you're suggesting that the developer would meet with d.b.i. in a preapplication meeting to make sure how this egress would be compliant in terms of serving -- this hallway, which is in their building would be able to serve as an egress for the rear cottage and make sure that's compliant. that's something the developer would work out with d.b.i., how does it meet this code with alternate means? >> yeah. that's what i spoke about this, as well. this would need to come into d.b.i. with the easement agreement and the city attorney's office involved. it's a good point. i'm glad the appellant brought it up. >> president fung: if you had an egress across the property line, don't you have to be four

hours? >> i believe this is an open yard at the back. there's a step going down there. yeah, you talk about a communicating open, i think that's whatter -- opening, i think that's what you're talking about. i think this is in between the front and back building is where it is. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner lazarus: so going back to the beginning, my understanding is that short of a legal decision that there is an easement, it's not an issue relevant to this permit. there might be a moral obligation to provide something, but there's no legal obligation. i want to assess this as to whether it's code compliant, and in my opinion, it is. >> vice president swig: so i agree with you.

however, there's some other circumstances that have presented themselves here that i think the appellant and the project sponsor have to consider. the project sponsor has made it very clear that they would be willing to clear a -- to the best of their ability a legal easement that would satisfy the problem of getting the folks from the back cottage to the front and they would like to work on that. and even the issue related to the construction, they said we will -- i'm hoping i heard this correctly, to the best of our ability knowing that we have the access to the neighboring properties. i' i'll waive for them during the construction property to get to where they need to be.

then, on the other side, you have the appellant who says well, you know, we're going to take a risk here, and oh, by the way. the project sponsor doesn't have to do this, and we can say code compliant. if we do that, the appellant's not going to give up. they're going to continue to try to put a lis pendens on your property, they're going to try to keep you in court as long as they possibly can. regardless of that, they're going to cost you a lot of money and a lot of time even if they lose. i agree that we could very easily do what you're advocating. it passes muster, let's go, but it doesn't solve anything because you're going to have a problem, mr. developer, and you're going to spend a lot of money creating a problem for him, and i would prefer that that's something that you and the actual developer don't have to spend.

that being said, i'd like to give them a really short leash to work it out. short leash would be, like, by our next meeting, which is two weeks, and they don't work it out, here's what's probably going to happen. we're going to come back here, we're going to do exactly kwwh commissioner lazarus is saying. owner, you're going to be spending a lot of money, and appellant, you're going to be losing something. i would like to continue this to the very, very next meeting to see if they can work it out. if not, i'll support commissioner lazarus. >> president fung: i don't necessarily disagree with that approach, but i do need to say one point to your summary. i'm not sure that they can give

a code compliant egress. not per these plans, okay? so i think that's a -- that's the primary issue that has created an impasse between the two. >> vice president swig: and i think within that two weeks, then -- >> clerk: three weeks. >> vice president swig: within that three weeks, which is a good period of time, they can go and have consultation with mr. duffy and mr. duffy can provide them counsel -- if not, we're going to be back here, we're going to follow what commissioner lazarus says, and say i do, and it's going to be a rough one for both parties. i'm sorry. any other commissioner comments? motion to continue this until the very next meeting so that the appellant and the project

sponsor can work on the key issues to see if you can create a resolution to those issues. >> clerk: okay. and do you want them to submit plans in advance with approval of d.b.i.? >> president fung: they're not going to have enough time. >> vice president swig: there's not going to have enough time. if they can come back and show that they have a written agreement and outline, i think that's fine for me because they will have done some research with d.b.i. already. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president swing to continue this matter to march 27 to the appellant and property owner can try to reach a resolution on this issue. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, and we'll see you on march 27. thank you. this concludes the hearing. >> president fung: i think this meeting is adjourned.

[gavel] . >> thank you for coming today. my name is debbie mezlo, and i commissioner near on the status of women. [applause] >> thank you, i'll take it. the women's rrs history month. i want to thank all of the people that are here today as we launch women's

history month. it is an incredible thing to see elected officials, commissioners, community leaders, our male allies who are here, so thank you for coming to spend this time with us. i'd like to recognize my colleagues on the commission on the status of women, and if you will tanstand as i call your name. commissioner sonya melara. [applause] >> commissioner melara. [applause] >> they're celebrating, too. [laughter] >> i know. commissioner andrea shorter. [applause] >> commissioner cary pomerance. [applause] >> i also -- if you'll indulge me, i wanted to introduce and recognize marge fillhour, who is on the commission with us.

and introduce our director, dr. emily maraza. [applause] >> i wanted to say a couple quick things. i wanted to see what a privilege it is to serve on the commission on the status of women in san francisco. it is the strongest commission in the country. and there are a couple of reasons why: number one, we have a department that backs us up, as well as res sources dedicated to us per authority of the mayor to implement our mission, which is to uplift the quality of life for women and girls in san francisco. we have a particular focus on prevention of violence and economic equality. we also have a very unique history in san francisco, which is this: many decades ago the u.n. adopted human rights treaties specifically for women and girls. it is called the "convention to end the discrimination against women." it codifies us as equals in the law. now, the people of san francisco voted to adopt this locally. we were the first city to do this, and for many

years the only city to do this. and we did it in the face of the federal government failing to do this, which i think speaks to history repeating itself now. but the people of san francisco adopted this, saying to the women and girls in our community, we see you, we respect you, and you deserve dignity. so i'm always proud to be a san franciscan when i think about that, so it is such a privilege to serve on the commission. march is my favorite month because it is women's history month, and it gives us a focus around highlighting women and really honoring these unsung heroins we which in our community every day. speaking of honoring heroines, i have the opportunity to introduce our mayor, mayor london breed. this is our first opportunity to celebrate her during women's history month. i wanted to say a couple of things about her. i've known the mayor for many years. before she became a supervisor, before she answered the call and

really led us through a difficult time in this city, before she answered the call to leadership and became our mayor, and i can tell you a couple of things about her. number one, she has always been a leader in this community around strength and grit and resilience and self-determination, so thank you for that, even before you were in an elected office. she has always been there for women. she has been a mentee on senator kamala harris, whom i've worked for for many years, and she was there through the good times and the bad. so when she supports you, she supports you, and i think that is rare. and she is a person of action. she is going to get stuff done. since she has been the mayor, she has worked for strengthening protections for sexual assault survivors, and for sexual harassment guidelines here at the city, underscoring that all people have the right to work in their work places without violence. she has el held up our youth,

making it a priority to give internships every summer, that economic pathway that is so important, as well as for girls in our community. i'm proud every time i get to say mayor london breed. [applause] [cheering] >> thank you commissioner mezlo, and thank you to everyone who is joining us here today. i also would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of our elected officials. our chair, vicki hennessey is here. thank you for joining us. and our treasurer, jose, is joining us as well. and thank you to our fire chief, joanne white, for being here, as well as the director of emergency management, mary ellen carroll, thank you so much. some amazing women leaders in the city and county of san francisco. i'm just li