>> good evening and welcome to the may 22, 2019 of the san francisco board of appeal. president rick swi going wilg we presiding president. at the controls is the board's legal consistent and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments that will have a case before the board this evening, scott sanchez, acting deputy administrator

representing the planning commission and we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the building department inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off or silence cell phones. please carry on conversations in the hallway. for jurisdiction request, parties get three minutes each and no rebuttal. people affiliated must include comments within the three minute period. members have up to three minutes to address the board. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board, you are ask but not required to submit a speakerrer card when come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. own three votes are required to grant a jurisdiction request.

this women be rebroadcast on friday, july 26. it can be downloaded from sfmovetv.org and now we will swear in or affirm all those who wants to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you are able and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you, and please be seated. item number one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. any general public comment? any members of the public? i think we can move on. we move on to item number two,

commissioner comments and questions? i'm happy for two things. i'm happy for the warriors and happy i don't live in alabama. thank you. [ laughter ] >> any public comment on that item? so we will move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes for may 15th, 2019. >> i have a proposed correction to the minutes. under journment adjournment -- >> commissioner tanner did ajourn the meeting. i saw it on tv. >> you were here in spirit. >> yep. >> his spirit banging the gavel. [ laughter ] >> so is there any public comment or do we have a motion first before we have public comment? >> i'll make that motion. >> ok. your motion is to adopt the

minutes with the revision from commissioner lazareth and any public comment? ok, so seeing none, on that motion, commissioner lazareth? that motion carries 4-0. item number 4, jurisdiction request, so 64 deloris street, asking that the board take jurisdiction over building permit application 2016-122250 issued on september 21, 2018 by the department of building inspection. the appeal period ended october 9, 2018 and the jurisdiction request was filed may 2, 2019. the permit holder is veritus investments. it's per ordinance 162-16, single exit, sprinklers required

per nfpa, fire alarm to meet fire code section 1103.7.6.1 under separate permit and we will hear from the requester first. mr. kessler one have three minutes. >> i will disclose i'm a partner in a project that hired julius and they will have no affect on my decision. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is john kessler and i live at 10 of 4 deloris street, apartment number 7 and i'm here to make a jurisdiction request to the board of appeals. this request concerns 201612225670 for the addition of two dwelling units in the garage at 1064 deloris street. in the interest of time, i will focus on the jurisdiction requested south. i will summarize a few of my concerns. at this point, i would like to

submit letters from three other tenants who couldn't be here but was told by the board of appeals they could be taken into public comment. >> just give them to garry, if you could. >> today or landlord has only confirmed this work is i in the planning stages and provided conflicted assertions about the duration and scope of the project and how it will impact tenants and about their intent to mitigate and/or compensate for any result of services either temporary or permanently, such as garage parking, access to laundry facilities located in the garage and storage lockers also be located in the garage. although the landlord has communicated that they intend to

return parking laundry and storage to the affected tenants, intent is just that. while this project was originally planned to be completed with the mandated soft story retrofit, in an email on may 5, green tree communicated this may be completed separately from the retrofit and this serves to aggravate the situation for tenants as we have to navigate in a result of services and major disruption to the client disruption of homes for two extended projects. the retrofit and then the a department u construction last project. the landlord increased the capacity by 40% to the construction of six additional bedrooms with an existing units and surely add more as remaining units turn over. while i appreciate the fact the landlord posted -- excuse me. i was mistaken about this part.

let me amend that. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i ask the board to refer to et cetera decision on january 2 20, 2019 in which the board ruled the failure to notify tenants prevented them from filing the protest within a 15-day period. >> so i have a few questions. just giv getting the timeline correct, when you call miss dixon the property manager and she said that there was just speculative and they were in the planning but they had permits in hand. >> correct. >> so just -- i have it right here and you spoke to her when? >> i would have to check my email to see what the date was. my next door neighbor, who is actually here, had emailed her and copied me on the email. but that was on or around

february 14th of this year, i believe. >> probably he'll have time for testimony. >> it was february 14th of this year. >> thank you. >> and to elaborate on that, there is protection for tenants, as i think you know, and what you lease is what you get regardless of what happens physically within the building and so that although change is appropriate as long as it abides by the law, if you had a parking place, you'll have that parking place at the end. if you had a storedge unit, you have the same or like at end. ifs there was a laundry facility, if you had one in the first place, there will be one in the second place. may not be in the same location. but is there any reason for you to believe that you will have

less than what you had in the first place or what you have right now after the proposed or after the permitted activities are complete? >> based on the size of the garage area and two apartments in that envelope, it's hard to picture the existing storage parking and laundry existing with two apartments in their -- to confirm, did you ask from your project manager, from the apartment manager or the project managering in general for apple. >> i've asked them for details of the project and assurances about the return of those things. we've asked many questions about in and as i said, they really just have been really vague and saying don't worry about it, we'll work it out. so just for the record, you have

asked for plans. >> i specifically have not asked to see building plans, no. that's for details of the project. >> ok. >> i have a question just to understand how your services will be impacted if you have a lease agreement for parking space or storage or laundry and what is your current use of your unit and common building facilities? >> i didn't quite hear the beginning. >> just a question in terms what will be severed from you or the loss or worry is, is it vacating your unit or your concern that it may not be there? >> i have a parking space in the garage, the laundry machines that are in there which if you'll notice laundry mats aren dangered species in the city.

the parking space, lawn industry facilities. >> and the bike rack. just to give you an idea. >> in your communication, is there any reason to vacate your unit during the construction period? >> that's a good question. just three or four weeks ago, when i say they, i mean the landlord required entry into my apartment to remove a large portion of wall and ceiling to do exploratory demolition and i was able to stay during that process, but more work like that needed to be done, i would have to vacate. i've had to vacate if the past. >> sorry for the huge amount of

question. >> happy to answer. >> they did not supply a brief so we're going in half blind here. so thank you. >> sure. >> thank you very much. i appreciate appreciate it. really appreciate it. >> we'll hear if the attorney for the permit holder. >> thank you. i'm on behalf of the property owner. i think as has been discussed in a previous hearing, this is a jurisdiction request. the question here, did the city intentionally cause the requester to be late in the filing of the appeal? the final issue was notice required of the property owner, the permit holder? dbi has a clear outline of all of the type of work considered substantial alterations that would trigger notice to the neighbors. i think we're all in agreement none of those were triggered and one was, are you doing work in a tenant's space that would

require displacement? none will bees displaced as part of the adu project or seismic upgrade. the city's position on the garage storiage is that i storie severed and like there is use for the seismic work and it requires a 60-day notice to the tenants and i hope what you see in the emails there are of a project manager that while this project is in flux, does the cost ofasm of adus make sense? there were volunteer emails to the jurisdiction requester and because there's a 60-day requirement of notice, that will be required and it's always been the intent of the property owner

to do that when this work moves forward. so from our perspective, the boxes have been checked and these folks will have an opportunity beyond just the property owner's desire to keep them in the loop, there's the notice requirement and no one will be removed from their unit at any time. i'm here if you have any questions and thank you. >> does that include that they won't be -- if they have a parking mace beeparking place, s placed from their storage unit or have the loss of use of the laundry and drying facilities? >> the cities position at this point is that for an adu project, you can't simply remove them, so to the degree that any space needs to be used, other accommodations will be provided during that temporary move.

>> is there a reason we didn't receive some plans so we wouldn't be going through this hearing with blinders on? >> yes, apology for that. it was a jurisdiction request and, frankly, the time for the response comes relatively quickly on this one and i figured the issues were relatively limited but i'm hearing the entire board's entire to see that regardless of the scope and the matter. so i'll take that into consideration moving forward. >> in the to criticize you, but it's for the public record and it dovetails on a few things we've been working on here. one of the issues we're wrestling with is the justifiable fear factor that tenants have with regard to apartment building owners and some of whom are choosing to add adus. some of whom have to go through

the retrofit process by virtue of the law, and at this point, especially with the adu situation, there is to requirement in our opinion and we've gone on the record and sent a letter to the board of supervisors that there is no notice whatsoever, which if you happen to be an apartment dweller lucky enough to have an apartment in san francisco you can afford, when you hear that your building might be going under some surgery, that might displace you or not. they don't know because there's no notice. and so, that's why you're going to find some sensitivity. i'm using you as an opportunity to speak on the subject and that's why you find some sensitivity from this panel until the board of supervisors resolves the issue and then in our view gives proper notice of the tenants. that's why we would like plans

and transparency and clarity. >> my concern, unlike the other case, that these people reached out to management and to me, they outright lied to them. if they have permits in hand, how could they say this is in the planning works? the thought is that granted the opener is the othe other other e building and if you impact in any way it's common courtesy you inform the tenant prior and make it easier for everyone. according to the breach, and unfortunately, you did not submit one. it said they called numerous times prior to these permits, even after the permits were earneissued. permits indicate it's not in the preplanning face.

phase. phase. from the site permit doesn't authorize construction and we're going through the adenda process and it's being pursued. there's been no right to date to start construction. as you know, this is an owner that owns a number of buildings in the city and a lot of these projects are teeing them up at various stages. we weren't there and i'm not saying i was. i look at that email exchange and the requester's packet and i see reasonable back and forth and when this was brought up. >> i get it, but verito serious se is thelargest landlord in san francisco and so with many practicing and having many permits out, this should not be a surprise. they should probably have an expediter sitting inside at dbi.

so i'm trying to figure out where the mystery came from here. >> what i will say, this adu issue has been coming up a lot outside of the context of this board, specifically with respect to parking spaces. what i will tell you, commissioner, is that it's very much a work in progress and this is something i will communicate back to them because i, too, thini don'tthink it's a bad idet least give a heads up saying we're processing this permit. we don't know if we'll do it this year or next year. i'm just pointing out they're one of the largest adu providers in san francisco that they should have a system town.

>> down. >> i think absolutely right and i think that's a lesson. >> mr. sanchez, we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. subject property at so 64 deloris is located within rn1 zoning district, a mixed residential density district seeking to add two adus to the subject property increasing the count from 12 to 4 units. from the permit, it is soft story and a separate permit to bring it under compliance was issued in october of 2018. the subject permit was submitted in december of 2016, was approved abouapproved in 2017 an 2018 and the issuance would have the i 15-day appeal period. there's to accessory dwelling units and there is more recently

as of last summer a courtesy notice that we ask the property owners to do, if there will be a reduction in services. however, this permit, given it was reviewed by planning in december of 2017, that predates the courtesy notice which became effective last summer. so it would not be subject to that. from my understanding, they are reducing the number of parking spaces from ten to five and that is all that i have to note on this and just reiterating that there's to notice under the appling code and it couldn't have been subject to the courtesy notice we implemented last summer. >> so what bothers me and please clarify for the public, a side permit was issued but there were no plans and that would come as

an adenda will that be subject to an asunny. >> no. >> right. and this is a problem. if you were a tenant in an apartment, i can believe the rhetoric from the apartment building as much as i want to, but i'm still living in limbo and in fear because there are no plans. so all is well and food approximately we'lgood.and it dy and part of an adenda and not appealable or noticeable and stuff happens. so this is really problematic. this is really probbati problem.

they're a large landowner, well well-respected but do you know there are others who are not quite so respected and who may operate in a different way? so this is scarry. if i'm sitting with the appellant right now, i would be scared for the appellant because they're flying blind. they have to ability to appeal once these -- the real permit is issue. the site permit could be considered smoke and mirrors because there's to plans associatessed witassociated wit. >> the site permit is important. you'll find that anyone -- there are nuances to the permitting process for sure, but i was surprised to hear the attorney for the property owner say, well, it just a site permit. a site permit is a critical

element and it is the appealable document. there are plans associated with this. it's received all of the planning approvals that are necessary. if there were communications with tenant and asked is there a permit, i don't think they should be required to say, well, was it just a site permit or an adenda. they do have a permit and they have the site permit that was issued in september. whether or not there have been plan, there have been plans since december of 2016. they were reviewed b for a yeary the planning department. i think there could have been for transparency and could have been referred to the city's website which has this information about the permit processing. i think the information that was given wasn't as transparent and clear and complete as it could have been by the management. sitting in a different meeting right now, i think i heard that

the counsel for the project sponsor said there are no plans and they're still in flux. >> there are plans and we approve them. >> but the final construction plans. >> they don't have the ability to construct until they get the appropriate adenda which are the final details, but once you have your site permit, you know everything you need to know and that's the most useful information for the tenants. i don't know the tenants will care about the details that dbi is reviewing under the adenda and the fine details of electrical or mechanical or plumbing. they'll care about how many parking spaces are removed and how many units are added. that is well known and approved in 2017. >> should we be worried for the tenants when they reached out and got the feedback from the project sponsors' representative that said, well, the apple plane

still in flux? i thought that i read that? >> there could be changes. i would be concer concerned sayg we've received plans to do x, we may change that and do y maybe maybe they'll want to do more units. they have the ability to come back but they would need a revision to the site permit. if they wanted to come in and add another unit, they would need a revision and they can't do that under the adenda. i mean, they may be in flux but there could are been more communication about what was already approved. >> makes me feel better constituent out a letter that we did to the board of supervisors because i'm still, you know, wondering if i'm having gauze

put over my eyes because i can't get full disclosure and i don't know when something is permitted or applied for and i can't see plans. a lot of ambiguity that makes me feel uncomfortable, but that's why we sent a letter to the board of supervisors. >> the information is publically available. if they had gone to our website, net would have been able to see that information. if they asked the property opener and told we don't have plans. mr. mr. sanchez, is there a reason why it started three yeas ago? >> it was less than two years. >> since 12/22/2016, so two and a half years. >> they were submitted in 2016, approved by planning a year later and then knife months after that, it was issued. so it was less than two years.

>> date filed 12/22/2016 and issued september 21, 2018. is that the turn-around time for a du? >> our review was about a year and we have a more stream-lined process. this is on the earlier end of the adus. >> i wasn't trying to play pin the tail but that's why it took so long. >> it was an earlier adu submittal. >> thank you. >> i would like to add at this point, while i understand your perspective, and i think i said to two weeks ago discussing sending the letter, the issues that are of concern to the ten tenants that won't come to this board anyway. we're not solving for a problem that will change anything here. if they have issues with the permit, that's a different subject, but if they're worried

about severance of services, that's not our jurisdiction. i just want to clarify that. >> understood and recognised. >> thank you. we will now hear if the department of building inspection. >> the fees were or by $20,300 and i don't see anything untoward of the permit, seems to be properly done and no noticing permit. we issue 60,000 permits a year and there's a small number that people get notified on, neighbors, and so, there isn't anything wrong with the

notification process that dbi on this type of permit and one thing i would warn against is the adenda process, sometimes on projects we have up to is a adenta and you wouldn't want an appeal on every adenda. the site permit, i agree with mr. sanchez, there is a lot of information on that site permit and that doesn't going to change much regarding the lay-out of these units. if you look at the site permit plans, you won't see a lot of changes. if there was, the dbi process would send that back to planning just as we do with additions of new buildings. in essence, this is a good process because it now let's them design it structurally for what they got out of appling, basically. we've talked about this before. there was a soft-story permit and on the building itself, they

have a history from what i saw. there was a complaint two days ago about the the permit and that's an allegation and i'm available for questions, there are any. >> thank you. any public comment?

part of this is about this is a permitting question and whether they should be given access to the appeal's process to point made earlier about how invasive this project is going to be, whether tenants will be temporarily displaced, for example, whether it meets the criteria outlined by the dbi, this project is scheduled to take eight to nine months. now if that's daily, eight to nine months and goes with the loss of services, even if temporary that have been outlined, water turn-offs, electricity turn-offs, i think the tenants of our billion ought tbuildingought to have the abilo make an appeal. these adu projects seem to fit in an odd space considering how

long and invasive they can be. just to answer a question that was brought up previously, i originally sent the email to kelly dixon, who was a regional manager in charge of our building for green tree property management. it was dated 2/14/2019. to start a conversation about the soft story retrofit, because that's the first thing i heard and we knew that green tree/veritose had a requirement to do the retrofit this year. and then in april, april 17th, 2019, just to make clear we've been talking about plans and so on, just wanted to read a little bit of this email. as plans po plans have not been finalized, i do not have details

but the project has been estimated eight to nine month and then we bring up the conversation about being compensated for lost parking spaces, even if temporarily and she says as for the compensation plan for parking, it would be dependent on the residential lease and parking charges. i'm unable to give global answer which made us believe we would have go lease by lease and hope that we get compensated. it looks good. so i have a question, sir. so you understand there was no notification required going through here, so he were not obliged by city to inform and neither was the department. but you're pretty informed that you've gone through and did you ever look at the city and county's website to the plans on file? >> i did not. i did not look -- it's not

common practice. >> you've not a little more awargotten a little moreaware. >> i looked at the dbi's website but i don't track it to see when new permits were issue. so i didn't see the. >> when were you aware there would be work done to the property, period? >> there were two projected floatinprojectsfloating around. there's a soft-story retrofit that we knew would happen but we didn't know when and the adus which we suspected because i have seen people outback doing the measurement, eyeing the place and they offered to pay us for parking spaces in the past. >> that's the bonus that required soft story and they're allowed to fit in as many as they can, so a parking spot is

golden yourself. itself. >> but when did we know, this was our idea and wasn't until the email dated -- the one i just read from, april 17, that the opening line, i want to let you know we're moving forward with plans for the soft story and possibly the ad us. >> how long have you been a tenant in this building? >> since 2010. >> they started this work this 2016 but did not inform you until april of 2019? >> april 2019, after i reached out to them in february of 2019. ok, thank you. >> so how did you become originally aware of the plans? was it seeing from people around. you said you knew they had to do the mandatory size and retrofit? did they inform you?

>> i don't know specifically how i came to know that the soft story retrofit had to be done, i think, by september of this year. i mean, we all talk and know this is probably coming. my memory is one of the other ten quanttenants in the buildine jacob whose been there 39 years. he's keen to know what's going on and i want to say he brought it to my attention that the law would require them to do this work by september. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. so commission es commissioners,s submitted. >> so since there was a reference to a decision that was made in january, which could be seen as a precedent, i would like to ask the city attorney if he has any advice on whether to rely on that as a precedent? >> as know, the board's decisions are not residential. .

this did not involve a soft-story retrofit or adu. i think in that case, the tenant would be required to leave the apartment in connection with the work. irrespective of those two differences, the board can take jurisdiction of a case where the city has intentionally or inadvertently caused the appellant to be late in filing the case. and i would caution the board that there has to be a city officer who has a duty to provide such notification under existing law for there to be a finding the city intentionally caused the late filing. the board is not a legislative body and it is up to the board of supervisors to man make poliy

decisions for the city. by finding the city should create a new requirement, it could be argued that the board would be stepping outside of its boundaries, its jurisdiction and imposing a requirement that is not existings in the current law. >> now, in a jurisdictional case, do we have the ability to continue to require more information so that i can make a decision? or do we have to make a decision today? >> the board can continue this case just like it could continue any other case. i want to add, this permit is not suspended. >> the board could still go forward. just whether we will take jurisdiction or not. >> ok, thank you. >> i think i would offer i would offer to commissioner lazareth's point to the jurisdiction and the name of our body and follow up on the attorney's

recommendation and kind of counsel to us, that what is in consideration here doesn't seem to actually be the building permit itself or the site permit as it were. but rather the potential loss of services which we talk about often as part of the circumstancjurisdiction of the d if a tenant has a case or issue regarding losing services and not properly compensated with the city's code and ordinance and things like that. so while i am very sympathetic to the situation, i'm open to getting more information and i'm not sure this would qualify as a case that we would extent our er jurisdiction to cover, especially considering the subject does not really appear to be some the construction. whereas i think -- not that it's precedent-sitting but there was impact to the unit that the appellant was dwelling in through the construction itself. that was a little bit, i think,

more troubling, perhaps. >> i would agree with both commissioner tanner and commissioner lazy renta lazarete should be mindful of what we're chatting about here. and we have heard many cases and some are more hairy than others. this is not one of the hairier ones. hairy would be when there were other activity going on in the building as part of the permit, that would cause move-outs. we've had situations where, a lot of situations and not to get into. but i would agree this is a

rent-board issue, not a permit issue. that being said, it would be one heck of a lot easier, however, as i get back on my bully pulpit, for the board of supervisors to provide notice in situations like this, because we wouldn't be here in the first place. we might not be here in the first place. mr. sanchez is shaking his head. because if there were notice, if there was the requirement for a building owner to disclose, this is what we're doing. thihere are the plans. this is how you'll be affect and you won't be affected, there might be an opportunity to have clarification between the building owner and tenant. without that, everything is fuzzy manual.

math but all tenants are not as sophisticated as you would like them to be. and they all might -- you see week after week how people get up in front of us and say we've never been here before and we have to idea how this system works, and so we have to fall to the lowest common denominator. again, i would be an advocate of notice, it's not a requirement right now an and not the law. it might be easier if there was better disclosure and a tendency to side-step ambiguity. with that, i'll acts fo acts foa motion. >> let me add my two cents first. so as a landlord and as a citizen of this city, i think that personally, i think landlords should be more

considerate of the people that are living near spaces in their. it's not our job to make legislation. that's the board of supervisors and we pointed in that direction. i don't know what happened here, owother than what's before us. sad to see a landlord have a stumble like this but even by continuing this, there's nothing we have no real jurisdiction of what you guys real want to see happen here and so, again, i feel bad, but i think that in this particular case, i'm not willing to take jurisdiction. >> i would like to make one other distinction which is regardless of what is appropriately here, this is a jurisdiction request and we could fall back on the issue as

inadvertently and to me that's patently clear. >> yes. >> no disagreement. >> who would like to make that motion? >> i move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis of the city neither intentionally or inadvertently, causing the request to be late. >> on commissione the motion? so that motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. >> and there's no further business tonight so we are adjourned. >> just to the appellants, you could probably talk to the staff from the city departments and true little add a block notification or something to indicate when permits are pulled that you'll be notified.

>> growing up in san francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and it's still that bubble that it's okay to be whatever you want to. you can let your free flag fry he -- fly here. as an adult with autism, i'm here to challenge people's idea of what autism is. my journey is not everyone's journey because every autistic child is different, but there's

hope. my background has heavy roots in the bay area. i was born in san diego and adopted out to san francisco when i was about 17 years old. i bounced around a little bit here in high school, but i've always been here in the bay. we are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. we don't turn anyone away. we take every child regardless of race, creed, religious or ability. the most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you don't seem like you have autism. you seem so normal. yeah. that's 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do. i was one of the first open adoptions for an lgbt couple. they split up when i was about four.

one of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. very queer family. growing up in the 90's with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. i was bullied relatively infrequently. but i never really felt isolated or alone. i have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in first grade, my desire to have a sex change. the school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. one of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what it's about, but my parents wanted my life to be safe. when i have all the

neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. i was a weird kid. i had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. when we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when i'm looking away from the camera, it's for my own comfort. faces are confusing. it's a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. at its core, autism is a social disorder, it's a neurological disorder that people are born with, and it's a big, big spectrum. it wasn't until i was a teenager that i heard autism in relation to myself, and i rejected it. i was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was

because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. i didn't like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. i was very difficult to be around. but the friends that i have are very close. i click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. in experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. i remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it meant that i couldn't cope. i grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal -- developmental psychology from all sides. i recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybody's in a

position to have a family that's as supportive, but there's also a community that's incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. it was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what? i'm just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. i have a two-year-old. the person who i'm now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining weight and wasn't sure, so i we went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so there's no way you can be pregnant. i found out i was pregnant at 6.5 months. my whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. i think i've finally found my

calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. i think the access to irrelevant care for parents is intentionally confusing. when i did the procespective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. we have a place where children can be children, but it's very confusing. i always out myself as an adult with autism. i think it's helpful when you know where can your child go. how i'm choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things, like, beach therapy. how do -- speech therapy.

how do you explain that to the rest of their class? i want that to be a normal experience. i was working on a certificate and kind of getting think early childhood credits brefore i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in san francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i don't really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight person's perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and i'm like absolutely. so i'm now one of the guest speakers in that particular class at city college. i love growing up here. i love what san francisco represents. the idea of leaving has never occurred to me. but it's a place that i need to fight for to bring it back to what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe

environments to move somewhere safe. what i've done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that we're still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a resource center, and this resource center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. i would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. so many things that i would love to do that are all about changing people's minds about certain chunts, like the transgender community or the autistic community. i would like my daughter to know there's no wrong way to go through life. everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary.

they are prohibited -- prohibited at the meeting. if you are responsible for one going off, you maybe asked to leave the room. cell phone set on vibrate may require interference. item four, approval of the minutes from the may 7th, regular meeting. >> we have the may seventh meeting minutes. are there any questions or concerns about them? is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. i will entertain a motion. >> moved to approve. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> i have no communications for you at this time. item six, his introduction of new ordinances. >> any board members that have newer unfinished business? we have a lot of unfinished business on the agenda so we will get right onto that. item seven