is showing. >> my house shares. >> welcome. could you identify yourself. >> i am clark. i live on lake street. my house shares a property line with the 25 17th avenue. i speak to reiterate concerns

you have heard from the neighbors. for the past four years we have been abused by manipulations and false measurements and development to seek the vastly increased size of the existing house and squeeze another house on the property. last july responding to wide ranging misrepresentations and inappropriate revisions the planning commission by 5-1 vote issued discretionary review ordering the full restoration of the existing three story bay window on the south side of the home. this was critical action. full restoration of the three story bay restores the home to original design. it is important to note the 25 25 17th avenue occupies two

lots. with the three story bay extends to both lots. by eliminating the window they can squeeze another house into that lot. to our great dismay on january 20, 2020, six months after the planning commission with the 5-1 vote the city approved the building permit based to the revised architectural plan for partial restoration of the bay. two of the original nine windows on the south and west wall nor the original door. i appeal the developers restore the three story bay, there by honoring the commission's decision in june. circumventing the developer's devious attempts to the end of the run ensuring the integrity of the original house. >> your time is up. we are going to the next caller

5576. >> i don't think they are there. >> 6867. >> hello would you like to speak in public comment? >> we are trying 3747. are you there?

>> i would like to make a comment. it seems people have been waiting on the phone for a long time. alec is not recognizing that they don't know they are talking to him. everybody can hear him say that. he needs to say the phone number and give them a moment to clue in that it is them. >> we will slow it down. >> you are moving too quickly and people aren't realizing he is speaking with them. it is clear we have problems over and over again with each caller. >> i think we did hear from a lot of callers. >> you are having trouble with many of them. >> let's go to the caller whose number ends 6867.

>> this is 3747. carol has spoken. you can take this number off the line, please. >> now we are on the caller. number ends in 5576. >> hello. i think we have spoken already. i am john. i talked 30 minutes ago in support of the developer to let these people get on with the work. >> try the other numbers.

6867. are you there? >> i already spoke as well. >> thank you. we don't want to leave anybody out. we did not hear from ms. clark. i can give her a call.

>> i have ms. clark on the line. do you want to speak? go ahead. speak, please. >> i am nancy clark. 1628 lake street. i lived here for 48 years. my house shares a property line with the property in question. i wanted to say that i agree that in san francisco we need

more housing. we don't need monster housing that are extremely wealthy people that are in our city. what is so disheartening about the process -- yes. [ inaudible ] >> she needs to turn off the tv.

>> we are starting your time over. you have two minutes. >> i live at 1628 lake. i have lived in this house for 48 years. i share a property line to the back with the house in question. as i think i said before, i fully agree that we need more housing in san francisco. what we do not need are two monster houses that are crammed into a lot on a street that has in fact a great deal of integrity and history. what has happened with this whole project is that we have

been subject to repeating im propities on the part of the developers. they submitted plans that are fraud you slept and misrepresent -- fraudulent. they misrepresented the project. it is an eyesore. i want to say it has not attracted the kind of attention some people have said. i believe in order to proceed properly we should go with the ruling that requires that the baby restored. we should mimic the size of that property to 5589 feet as approved by the planning commission. i appreciate all of the comments you made. thank you. i do believe that proceeding at any great speed would be not

helpful. we need to honor a process and we need to make this as honorable as possible. thank you. >> i am going to end the call now. you can turn the tv back on. thank you. >> we are on the public comment portion for appeal 20-013 and 20-014. it is 25 17th avenue. if you are watching we will give you time to call in. the phone number is provided on the website as well as i understand from sfgovtv they have the phone number running. let's give you time. i am checking in. are you aware of any other callers?

let's give it 30 seconds so we can ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak on this matter. can you check the e-mail to see if anyone is having trouble getting through? >> i just checked. stefani -- that was for nancy clark. that was it. >> we can move on from public comment. thank you. we are moving to reputtings. we will hear -- rebuttal. you have three minutes, mr. drater. >> i need the powerpoint. can you see it? >> yes.

>> i am going to start. slide 1. dpw approval of certificate of apappliance for lot 21 was irregular. it was ineligible to file due to two outstanding notices of violation and requiring bay restoration. city survey your approved the application 10 days before the department determined the application and one month before they conducted the department review of the application. slide two is the project management for this coc. you can see the action that should have been taken before the coc was approved occurred after the coc was approved on january 7, 2017. slide three. dpw sent plat maps to the assessor for recording.

the preliminary plat map shows the bay but lacks the signature and seal of the surveyor who submitted the application. second map submitted 26 days after the coc was approved has the signature and seal of the surveyor but does not show the bay. why is the bay not on the second plat map? slide four? six days after the two plat maps were recorded the project surveyor sends the e-mail expressing concern for the coc would not be acceptable to the title company. one of the reasons he sited is the two plat maps. slide five. coc for 25 17th avenue is one of 124 applications in the project management system. this and a few other cocs appear to have been improperly

approved. it appears that dpw under the former director may have been improperly including both lots and mergers for developers and wealthy individuals. these lot splits and mergers should have you been gone through the planning department lot split and merger public project and they weren't. slide six. we have a responsibility to address potentialrupt behavior when we see it. requiring the city attorney to issue a legal pinto fulfill this obligation. this needs to move forward. if they would submit plans for 5589 square foot and full restoration of the bay and the issuance of site permit and legal opinion from the city

attorney of lot 25 is a legal lot. thank you very much. >> thank you we will hear from mr. greinetz. >> i want to point out that in this picture that is behind me you can see that the bay is here, right there. there is another piece that someone else mentioned that was demolished and the chimney in the back was also demolished without a permit. the house you are looking at behind me a significant portion of the house was demolished without a permit. ththe city is requireing the ba.

mr. kevin and mr. sanchez misquotessed the order issued by the planning commission when they both spoke. the language was clear. revert the existing building. sorry. this is the order on the subject property. revert to the previous existing condition by restoring the three story bay. the order on the other property on the other house reads revert the existing building to previous existing condition by restoring the three story bay. then it says the bay would extend over the lot line and encroach the subject lot. a new proposal will need to respond to this condition. the order from the planning commission was very clear that

the house on the new lot south lot would need to be adjusted after the bay was restored to the original condition. the idea mr. sanchez and the developer are trying to sell you the bay needs modified to accommodate the other house. this is not what the planning commission clearly intended based on the orders in july. they wanted the new house if and when approved to be adjusted to allow for the fully restored bay to be built on 25 17th avenue. i it is behind this house. i am sick and tired of looking at the disrepair that the developer left the house. i want this thing to move forward. all the developer has to do is go by the rules instead of trying to cheat time and time again. this is the third time i had to testify at i a public hearing

pursuant to the law and finding by the board. it is time for this board to hold up the requirement of the planning commission and require this developer to follow the law like everybody else. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. kevlin. you have six minutes. >> i have some conleading remarks. i would like to have the project representative speak to commissioner's question about the boa permit previously issued by the board. >> thank you. you asked about the previous board permit. i wanted to let you know and hopefully mr. duffy looked that

up. it is still valid. it is no abandoned. it is active in the system. we acted on the board's permit in good faith. we brought the building back to a structurally sound condition. the only thing waiting to be done is to pour the slab. that is because we have not been able to put the underground plumbing in. the senior inspector was out at the property and met with mr. drater and mr. greinetz and confirmed the building was in a sound structural condition. >> thanks. thank you commissioners. i want to bring up the comments the president and commissioner made that really well book ends this long torture case which is,

first, commissioner swig. yes, this entire project started with a wrong. no one is dancing around that fact. that bay came down wrongly. we didn't dance around it at the planning commission hearing. the commission adjudicated it. it was what you suggested in the 2017 board hearing that the bay should be rebuilt. this issue has been very clearly considered the wrong and this is the resolution. mr. sanchez confirmed the discussion while extensive whent the bay it was a quick response from commissioner richards at the end of the hearing. the board didn't speak to it. there was a vote. this is compared to other dr decisions this one really was

made in a vacuum. it was not absolutely clear coming out of that hearing like other hearings. president lazarus to your point. the planning commission has seen these issues. commissioner richards was the lead on cracking down on construction and demolition done without a permit. your point about being rebuilt to today's code comes in every one of those cases. typically it is believe or fire code. when they are demolished they need rebuilt consistent with the building and fire code. there are issues each of the projects need to resolve. on this project we have a planning issue. we have an issue where if you were to -- as mr. sanchez said and i will share my screen again

-- if someone was to propose this at the planning commission, it would not be approved. the reason is it is clearly not consistent with the residential design guidelines created by the planning code. this is a planning code issue. it is not black and white in exact setbacks and that sort of thing. there is more interpretation involved. this is a clear case. no windows facing someone's front yard to someone's house and you don't center it leading to someone else's front yard. i think we need to take these two issues. there was a wrong that is clearly debated and discussed and the seven member planning commission decided like commissioner swig mentioned in the earlier hearing it should be rebuilt. in rebuilding that, it needs rebuilt consistent with code and

this is very clearly inconsistent with the planning code, the residential design guidelines. we need to take that into account and not take the original error and continue it on through the actual construction and applying to future generations on the block with nothing to do with the developer or anyone else at the hearing today. for that reason really we are requesting the board deny the appeal and let the project move forward as proposed and approved by the planning department staff. thank you. we have the team here including architect and surveyor if the question comes up. thank you. >> thank you. we will now move on to the planning department. mr. sanchez.

anything further. >> a couple of points. my previous presentation i did relate to the board verbatim the planning commission decision to revert the existing building to the previous condition by restoring the three story bay. i believe that is what i had said. in regards to the other item not before the board but might someday be before the board on the adjacent property. the existing building on the adjacent lot to the previous existing condition noting this is a separate permit on the other lot but it was making a decision taken on the other permit before you now. to restore the previous existing condition by restoring the bay over the lot line and encroaching the subject lot and this needs to respond to the condition. this language is in the planning commission action approving the

new construction. they don't make any other direction or discussion about how that project should and could respond to that condition. when we are at this, you know, we are what the project sponsors have done the actions are inexcusable. we have to implement sound planning principles. we are left with how do we implement the planning commission's actions which impose the condition on the subject property to restore the bay which encroaches over the property line to the adjacent property as well as approval of new construction on that ad jay sent lot. it is an unusual circumstance. we were at this because of the project sponsor's actions. had they gone through the proper process from the beginning, through the historic review, we

would have been able to approve the request. that is what we did in 2017 and that was appealed to the board of appeals. there is a much more straightforward path that they wanted. unfortunately they chose a different path and we are where we are today trying to make rational planning sense of where we are right now and how we can more importantly move forward with the resolution. having those windows look back into the front yard of that new construction on the adjacent property is difficult to mitigate those impacts by changes on the new building. do you build that adjacent building right up to and blocking the windows restored? set it back more? you still have the front yard area and awkward situation there. in reviewing the zoning

administrator found this was consistent with the planning commission's decision consistent with the residential guidelines and ultimately as i said before this is de novo hearing before the board to make a final decision as you see appropriate considering the facts raised. lastly, and it is raised about the certificate of compliance, that is not before the board as i understand it. there was a complaint made to the city attorney and they have investigated. my experience we are lucky to have the city attorney. they leave no stone unturned and do thorough investigations. if they did not find issues my understanding i don't see what the issue is. i have been working for the city for 20 years i am no expert in certificate of compliance. we defer to the department of public works.

if they find something to be eligible for certificate of compliance there is no requirement at that point as i understand it. with that i am available for any questions the board may have. lastly i would like to thank the board for such a smooth hearing. it is hard for the virtual hearings. it is an incredible job. thank you. >> i have a question. >> we have commissioner swig and president lazarus raising their hands. commissioner swig, go ahead. >> scott, what i am wrestling with here is there was some illegal teardowns. i am incredibly sympathetic to the public comment that was made, let's get this thing built and online and stop disrupting

the neighborhood. incredibly sympathetic. however what we have is an illegal teardown an the developer did it to himself. still to my satisfaction hasn't acted on what we asked him to do last time. then the developer also owns the property next door and so we are allowing the developer who correct me if i am wrong miss cued and tore everything down then didn't follow our direction then went back to the planning commission and the planning commission says build it back the way it was and then because the developer next door who happens to be the same owner who started this, you are now saying that, well, they want to build a house there, we can't put the

windows back the way they were before. what am i missing here? why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog? if this bay would have never been torn down illegally the windows would be there and whoever wanted to build the house next door would have had to deal with that. is it not the tail wagging the dog? what is wrong with this picture for me, please? >> i think you raise completely fair points. what we are left with is the fact the planning commission at the restoration of the bay and new construction. the planning commission approved that new construction. they said there should be changes to take into account the new design. changes have to be. where that bay is to be restored the building was going to be in that location. to what extent they need to cut

back the envelope, the planning commission didn't say. we are trying to, you know, read and interpret their decision as best we can and we come to the point where the bay window is not needed for historic purposes, that it had they gone through the proper process, i don't know what the neighborhood response would have been with the proper process. they could have obtained the permit to remove the bay window before they did so. had they gone through that process if there would be the same response from the community i don't know. the fact is they didn't go through the appropriate process. this is where we are. we have a new project on the adjacent lot and bay which needs to be restored for the planning commission decision and when they submitted their revision that incorporated the planning

commission decision it was reviewed by our design staff and building administrator and found it to be consistent with the commission's decision and didn't violate the terms of the commission's decisions. >> inadvertently, the mall fee stance of the developer is rewarded because the law and i am not doubting you says it now needs to be that way. if they never would have done it in the first place you would nerve have had to make the interpretation now made, right? >> the reason they are required to retain the bay is not because of preservation issues. it is the planning commission decision based on the fact they did it without permit. the planning commission didn't say there was a planning reason for it to remain other than the fact they did it without benefit of permit. when i read you the decision was

the decision. no other rationale in the written decision that outweighed the planning principles for the action that they took. the commission went through the deliberation, commissioner richards was saying thi this ist we have done in other cases. go back. in other cases they didn't go back to what was there before. there have been changes. we did our best to interpret and apply their decision. we deferred to this board to make the appropriate final decision so we can move on from this abmove forward. >> you sense my frustration and i appreciate your response in this difficult decision. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from president lazarus and commissioner honda and tanner.

>> go ahead. again to clarify, the bay was over the property line for 27 is that correct? >> yes. the issue here with the certificate of compliance is the historically one or two lots, public lots said two lots not merged. you have the bay window from 25 17th avenue extending over the property line on to 27 17th heavy. that is the condition. the planning commission wanted that restored then crore much meant to the property. >> as you pointed out they would have asked or gotten a permit to tear it down they just didn't go the legal route? then i also want to confirm that

some suggested the new development be modified to allow for the restoration of the original bay but it doesn't sound like that is a possibility? >> the planning commission decision requires restoration of the bay. we had approved removal of the bay in 2017. the planning department approved removal of the bay in 2017 appealed to the board of appeal. they said do other things don't remove the bay. they have never obtained proper mission to remove the bay. the permit before you during the notification and the commission hearing we recommended -- we had no issue or opposition of the

removal the planning commission required the bay restored. we will approve the project next door. we are not going to tell you the changes, just make changes. that is the situation where we are right now with that add adjacent property. they didn't specify what changes to be made on the adjacent property. they can move ahead with the project there. they have an encroachment on to that property then they have to cut back the envelope of the adjacent believe they are proposing as new construction. those are all do-able things. what we have is the window laterally and looking back at the new construction. >> just to clarify, is there a way to meet the current guidelines, restore the bay as

it was and not have any impacts on the adjacent building? >> it is up to this board. if you are comfortable with the restoration of the window, that is the way it will be. they will be deciding what to do with that new construction project. you will be approving a bay window with windows on three sides that look at all angles of that adjacent property and so what is going on isn't before you tonight. it is just the windows on the bay. >> thank you. we will hear from vice president honda. you had a question? >> most of my questions were answered buyer my fellow commissioners. mr. sanchez if i can remember at the last hearing, it was

determined that the bay was an addition done after the construction of the property and determined that it was not historic. yet our board continued to not allow them to take that pay off. then it went, if i am understanding, went to the planning commission. that doesn't matter. they gave instructions to keep the bay but not specific instructions for it to be as it was originally built. then it left it up to your department to determine as long as they brought the structure up, is that correct? >> to be clear on the commission's decision. there action on this they found exceptional circumstance with respect to the project and that the condition was that they

restore the three story bay. we can debate what restoring means but trying to apply in a way that is consistent with design guidelines the staff and zoning administrator found that replacing and having those windows back in the same location that wouldn't meet our design guidelines wouldn't be necessary. that was the opinion of the zoning administrator and design staff in interpreting this condition and now at the de novo hearing before the board you can derm whether we were wrong in that interpretation or strike that condition entirely or modify in any way. that is important what the commission decides. this is a de novo for the board

of appeals to decide what is appropriate. >> this is de novo. when it is before our board we are specific on what we would like to get done. if we made a ruling, we would leave little for interpretation, meaning we would specifically request that it would be replaced in kind to the specific dimensions of the prior existing structure. granted that ex commissioner richards quoted that. he was very specific in his deliberations in prior hearings as well. leaving it open means it is up to the department to make the decision. >> as careful and thorough decisions are always appreciated by staff so there can be no room

for error. we did our best to interpret their decisions and we defer to the board. >> thank you very much. >> we will now hear from commissioner tanner. >> thank you for explaining the way you went about making the decision. i have questions along the lines of the president lazarus. if the windows are restored and the neighboring property permit is not before us. does that need to go through another revision? is it already approved and under construction or are they locked together because of the inter play between the two buildings? >> the permit for the adjacent building. the planning commission in the dr division approved it, but i don't know the current status of where that is with the department other than it does

not appear to have been approved. they are waiting for the out come of the hearing. whatever decision you take to restore the windows, then they will have the revisions. windows are windows. it is not going to change the envelope of thing. the building. it is going to create privacy issues. it is the give and take with the design. you know, if the board approves the restoration of the windows and having the windows there, too, then they will respond and there is nothing that would prevent them from public hitting the project to comply with that. >> is there any type of building issue that may be for mr. duffy in terms of fire rating or issues when we talk about property line construction not

knowing the construction of the other buildings but trying to get the full picture if there would need to be some type of -- i don't know what. either change against other building or if, you know, the window opening versus the solid wall as impact of the building code perspective. mr. duffy is that something you would dress or mr. sanchez. >> they would give a more thorough response. as i understand windows on the property line are allowed. they need to be fixed, fire rated windows. there needs to be an nsr restriction put in place you lose the right to those windows if someone builds against you. they are not permitted in perpetuity. moving forward that is how it would proceed. i would defer to senior

inspector duffy. >> do you have anything to add to that? >> that is a good question. any openings in that bay will need to be the ones remaining are going to be 60 minute windows. the building code perspective the less openings the better for fire ratings. there are certain instances where we see the windows. it has to be minimum 45. our plan checker asked for 60. all of the windows would have to be those windows is my understanding. >> thank you very much. that is all my questions. >> thank you. mr. duffy, you have six minutes in rebuttal if you would like to use that time. >> thank you. just getting back to

commissioner swig from the earlier question. i have looked up the permit but i am in my office. i looked it up. we have seven inspections on that permit. i did contact the senior inspector for the area. he verified there had been multiple inspections done. i heard that they need to get the slab poured and put in the underground plumbing. that wouldn't be put in until this permit. it looks like they made the property as safer as they can. it is not a hazard. that is taken care of. they have to get the slab poured. they extended the permit and kept it alive until later this

year in 2020. a comment about the planning commission last year made a few decisions about something back the way it was. it is easier said than done. mr. sanchez and i have spoken regarding state street to put it back that is hard. this is easier but on the hopkins one decided on hopkins to put it back. from my understanding the owner of that property they think they are getting a new building. some of those decisions are issues that cause us a lot of work. commissioner swig we talked about this before as well. staff time. this is a nightmare as well. i would say he doesn't know why

he made that decision. this is four years down the line. we are sitting here tonight still discussing it. we need to move on. i respect mr. drater and the other gentlemen's opinion. they brought up good points. i am available for questions. it has been challenging for our staff as well. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner tanner. >> yes, thank you. can you also explain if this would be under the dvi purview if the homeowner of the subject property would want to close the openings what permit or process would that applicant go through? >> good question. they would have to get a building permit to remove the openings. it would be taking out the openings and put in the wall.

the wall is 1r rated. i think in years to come this will look like an odd ball whatever happens because of encroaching over the property line. it is unusual. >> would that be an over-the-counter or permit for your staff to take for review? >> the windows? >> yes. >> that would have to go to planning and then building. it is an exterior change. >> can you speak to the process for that future permit should that come about for closing the windows? >> removal of the opening or closing up the window opening would require the planning dent and the public right of way and wouldn't require notification on the subject property it can be approved over-the-counter if it

meets our design requirements. >> great. thank you. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. who would like to start? commissioner honda. >> i will start. >> commissioner honda you need to raise your hand. >> i don't have that button in front of me. >> commissioner swig. >> i hate to reward bad behavior with what is going to happen. what i see here is even though i was the one who said build it back the way it should be. ultimately, what i see

happening, thank you commissioner tanner, is that the somebody is going to say close up those windows anyway. i hate going against what planning recommends because i lean on what planning says. they are the professionals and i am not so even though i think the behavior was abhor rent and i hate to see illegal stuff get rewarded, i see in this case that even though again commissioner richards might have wanted to have it replaced the way it was built in the first place, i think i am leaning to the seed of planning recommendation. i think i it is inevitable those windows are going to get closed. i will let other commissioners speak. i am not making a motion on this

at this point. >> commissioner tanner. >> i was definitely where commissioner started which was this is the stuff that really i think does a disservice to then tore building and development -- entire building and development committee and makes it difficult to get projects through. a good number of cases are folks who have not followed the rules and have to do all these other things. i am thinking about the old add damage two wrongs don't make a right. the planning department was given direction to restore windows to restore the bay which did mean to include the windows. they didn't have that specific as they normally do. looked at this to say do this and these other rules say this to punish the bad behavior if we

do something that is maybe punishing it doesn't make it correct. it is not good planning to have those windows facing the other house. that is not good practice, why would we do that in order to make a point to someone on bad behavior? is it punishing the future homeowner or residents of both homes? with that in mind, that is why i and the fact their product has taken this long. perhaps they have gotten the punishment and self-inflicted due to lack of diligence in following the rules, maybe due to the efforts of the neighbors they have been punished with the time taken and perhaps now we can do something to make both homes be in the community long after he sells them or what not.

i don't know what the future brings. i could be persuaded to go the punishment routes. i think we have exhausted that to some degree. >> commissioner honda. as you know, this has been before us in 2017. essentially by keeping those bays, it becomes a huge inconvenience for the developer. the bay has encoached the secondary lot. our job is not judge and jury and executioner. it is frustrating when builders get ahead of themselves. they were ahead of themselves. in this particular case, they have been punished for four years delay, but they have gone to the department. the permits before us that are

being appealed are the correction to the corrects of the permit. there is notice of violation on the property. they did according to the department do what we asked them to do two and a half years ago. at this point it is code compliant. this is day notice vo. i believe it is my decision to deny the appeal on the basis is permit is not code compliant. to the people that participated in the hearing i appreciate the fact that you beared with us. this is our first online zoom meeting and of course there are challenges to the first and i appreciate everyone's input and participation. what is before us is a project that is code compliant. you know, if someone said to the public earlier we need to move

this forward. there is so much process both by the building department and planning commission and board of appeals. there is nothing under handed being done at this point. if it is up to me i would make a motion to deny the appeal. >> commissioner santacana. >> i will be brief because i think my views were stated essentially exactly right by commissioner tanner. i couldn't really agree with her mother. >> is there a motion then on this matter? >> i move deny the appeal that the permit has been properly issued. >> we have a motion from vice president honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. commissioner santacana.

>> aye. >> president lazarus. >> aye. >> an commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> i waiowa. >> aye that motion carries and the appeals are denied. thank you for your time and participation. see you next week. thank you sfgovtv. >> good job, julie. >> thanks to sfgovtv and everyone. we will see you in the next few weeks. good-bye. good night.

>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics

wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things.

>> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be coming to play at the same time. >> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment. [♪]

>> the meeting will come to order. good morning, everyone. this is the april 22, 2020 regular budget and finance committee meeting. at this time, i will also be calling the appropriations committee. i am joined by supervisor -- [inaudible] broadcasting this meeting. motion to -- for today's budget and appropriation committee. >> thank you.

can i have a second please? >> roll call vote, please, madame clerk. >> the motion? walton aye. mandelman aye. yee aye. fewer aye. there are five. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. welcome. madame clerk, any announcements? >> yes, madame chair. due to the covid-19 health care emergency and to protect members of the public, the board of supervisors and chamber room are closed. however, members will be participating as if they're physically present.

all the comments will -- public comment will be available. streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. by calling (888) 204-5984. press pound and pound again. when you're connected, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak. you'll be lined up in the order. while you're waiting the system will be silent. the system will notify you when you're in line and waiting. all callers will remain on mute until their line is open. -- [inaudible] -- and streaming.

call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively -- at [inaudible] if you submit public comment, it will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service. finally, items acted upon today will be forwarded to the full board for consideration on april 28 unless otherwise indicated.

madame clerk. thank you. can you please call items 1 through 3 together? >> item 1, emergency ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the covid-19 disaster family relief fund. item 2, emergency ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the covid-19 disaster family relief fund and item number 3, appropriating $10 million from the general reserve for the creation of the family relief fund that will serve undocumented and extremely low-income families with children 0 to 18 years old and who do not qualify for stimulus relief. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we continued this item to the meeting for this meeting by -- supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. i want to provide an update and say we've been working closely with the leadership of the human

rights commission as well as with the mayor's office and we're going to be providing relief for this population working without doing this the legislative process. so i think it's appropriate items 1, 2 and 3. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, supervisor. so we have a motion to file items 1, 2 and 3. before we do that, let's open up for public comment. madame clerk, can you call for public comment? >> yes. madame chair, checking to see if there are any calls in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are any callers that are ready? >> madame chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: public comment is now closed. there is a motion to file this item and could we have a roll call vote, please? >> on the motion to file items 1, 2 and 3, supervisor walton

aye. mandelman aye. fewer aye. there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: congratulations, supervisor walt walton. can you call items 4 and 5 together? >> item 4, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to expend a grant in the amount of 900,000 for participation in the program entitled california injury and violence prevention branch overdose data to action for a period of january 1, 2020 through august 31, 2022. item 5, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $750,000 from the california department of public health for participation in the program entitled california injury and

violence prevention branch overdose data to action, peer to peer opioid stewardship alliance for period january 1, 20 through august 31, 2022. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we have dr. phillip kaufmann here from the department of public health. >> good morning. these are a continuation of expansion on work we've been doing for years as a health department. we've been providing services of training providers and health departments and health plans around california state in how to train other providers in opioid stewardship and managing opioid use disorder and clinical practice. those efforts were supported by the cdc through the department of public health and the second project -- so that's the first project, a continuation of that -- of those efforts for

another three years. and then the second project is expanding to provide technical assistance on these issues nationally. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> and the -- yeah. i'll stop there. >> supervisor fewer: please continue. >> the reason for this delay is the usual reasons of the time it took to process the receipt of the award. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions for dr. kaufmann? seeing none, there is no -- on this, let's open the items up for public comment. are there any people that would like to comment on items 4 and 5? please get in the queue and don't forget to press 1, 0. >> clerk: operation is checking to see if there are callers. operation, please let us know if

there are callers ready? >> madame chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: it's closed. i move to move these items to the board. >> on the motion, walton aye. mandelman aye. fewer aye. there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. please call item number 6. >> item 6, easy lieutenant-governors recei -- resolution retroactive authorizing the department of public health it accept and expend a grant in the amount of 87,000 for the period of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2022. is -- [inaudible]

-- from the department of public health. the presenter is not here today. i make a motion to move this item. there is no report on this, so let's open it up for public comment first. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 6? >> madame chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. public comment is closed. i make a motion to continue this item until the next meeting of the budget and finance committee. could i have a roll call vote, please? ms. wong, i think you're muted. >> my apologies. on motion to continue item number 6 to the next budget meeting, walton aye. mandelman aye. fewer >> aarti:. -- fewer aye. there are three ayes.

>> can you read number one of the budget and appropriations committee. >> yes. item number 1, hearing to review the budget process and related updates for the school years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and requesting the controllers office and the budget and legislative analyst to report members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number across the screen, press 1 and 0 to speak. >> supervisor fewer: we have the mayor's budget office and our controller. >> good morning, supervisors. this is kelly kirkpatrick. i have a brief update for you all as i provided last week on the city's kind of current operational spending since last week as well as an update on state and federal relief. as well as the state budget

outlook on the l.a.o. provided at a committee hearing last week, a look at the state budget. i'm going to do a screen shot to give you a highlight of the topics. all right. can you see that, chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, i can. thank you very much. >> wonderful. so update to our current year direct operational spending of the city from last week we spent about $42 million. the majority of which you'll see is additional salary and benefit costs for city staff involved in the health crisis. as we've gotten to better understand fema reimburse, this is an accounting tracking as i've shared before. this is what departments have input as money that has gone out the door. so most of the costs for staffing is what i would call the people-power dedicated to

our response. capturing people who have been reassigned or reallocated to doc or e.o.c. work. the majority of this is fema reimbursable. we expect them to include overtime, comp time and any new staffing added for direct health crisis response. but we're working to just try to capture in the accounting system people's time dedicated toward this and we're working with the recovery team to parse out and make sure we're going to capture as much as reimbursable funding as possible. it's helpful to know how much staff time is being dedicated towards this response and the people-power i would say. additionally, we've spent checks out the door of $9 million to house equipment and safety supplies. this is up about $3 million from

last week. it's almost all new p.p.e. for the department of public health. and then notably here as well, again, this is cash out the door, bills that have been fulfilled, about $5.7 million for a non-congregate shelter and other support services. this includes our non-congregate sheltering and it represents some initial deposits and costs for april for hotels that have billed us. i know there is a lot of other contracting in the works, just wanted to show this money has come through and gone out the door for shelter support and non-congregate needs, as well as i.t. and other transportation needs in the department. last week the state announced a targeted program, a disaster relief fund for undocumented

immigrants. $75 million represents the state's direct contribution. additionally $50 million will come from non-profit foundations. and this represents $125 million total for undocumented adults. it's estimated that 150,000 adults receive one-time payments of $500 with the cap of $1,000 per household. additionally, at the federal level, the senate passed -- as i'm sure we heard on the news -- another half billion dollars on small business and health care funding. and -- -- the majority of which is replenishing the $310 billion paycheck protection program. it's for small businesses to

retain their workforce. the initial program for this was $350 billion and as we all know, the need far outpaced the funding available. there is additional funding for other types of disaster relief funds as well as $75 billion for hospital relief and $25 billion for testing and contact-tracing. that's another typo. i apologize, we're working quickly. contact-tracing. and then the senate will resume in early may. it's our sense and the news is reporting that additional relief efforts will be discussed when the senate reconvenes. you know, the mayor as well as other local leaders and even state governors, including governor newsom are pushing hard at the federal level to ensure

we have relief at the local level through the next cares 2.0. one thing of particular interest to this director and hopefully to the council is -- [inaudible] -- we have received $150 million for the first cares act for the operation directly related to new covid spending, but it does not allow to backfill any lost revenue. that is a push. advocacy amongst ensuring that we have support of our small businesses and vulnerable populations who are disproportionately impacted. last week, the state l.a.o. provided a report at the senate budget committee hearing on the state of california's economy. l.a.o. reported and the governor stated that california has

entered a pandemic-induced recession. the drivers of this are covid-related costs, higher benefit drawdowns. in california, people are eligible for various entitlement program based on income, so we have significantly more people drawing unemployment, medicaid which is additional costs to the state and this is compounded by decreased revenues. the state is, as i'm sure we're aware, 12-15% of californians have lost their jobs which is contributing to these macro budget impacts. the budget shortfall, the upcoming fiscal year for the state to reach $35 billion. this is exceeds the state spending of $20 billion. and this revenue loss, according

to l.a.o. is on par with revenue losses during the great recession. as a result, l.a.o. recommended that the legislature -- in the near term. it's kind of more messaging we've been sharing over the last couple of weeks. it will take us several months to get a fuller picture of the impact on our budget of this dual increased costs and community need with a rapidly shrinking and diminishing revenue. the l.a. oo., similar to what we're planning for with the support of this committee, has moved their budget process back by a couple of months to allow both of those things to happen.

the l.a.o. has projected two different shapes to the economic downturn. in our march joint report update we provided two scenarios of recession. one was a v shape, meaning it was a rapid decline of revenue and a quick snap back. the l.a.o. provided two scenarios and they're different letters. our high end scenario was the same as the one that includes a u-shaped downturn. so it was a more prolonged kind of impact, but there is a pronounced recovery kind of snapping the economy back. they've also presented something they're calling an l-shaped downturn. which is a sharp downturn with a slow resolution to the covid response.

inadequate as they framed it and creating a protracted recession. as i said, it will take more time to understand the shape of this, but just trying to help people understand the potential or the magnitude that could come as result, depending on what the pandemic looks like in the coming months. in terms of expenses, the state is estimating at least $6-7 billion of additional spending related to covid response. this does not include entitlement spending, for programs like medicaid or cal works or unemployment, but just like we've been saying at the local level, current federal funding will cover some covid-related spending, but not revenue losses. similar kind view of how this is

impacting the state government like we're viewing it for our local budget. i just wanted to highlight that yesterday the mayor and the treasurer announced additional deferrals of various business-related fees. the newest one that we announced yesterday and that the mayor is introducing in an executive directive amendment this week is extending the business registration fee deadline by four months. this is $49 million of deferrals that impact almost 90,000 businesses, the majority of which are small businesses in san francisco. we've also further delayed the unified license bill which includes many different departments such as food safety and fire safety permits and businesses will not be penalized by individual departments for not having paid these.

it feels like a $14 million relief to our local businesses. we'll still ensure there is safe food and fire safety, but it's just the fee part by businesses providing that relief. and of course we've done a lot at the local level to help support our local businesses. i know there is a lot of need out there. but we've done -- we've done -- taken many different angles at trying to support our small businesses, small business community. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. or take any feedback for subsequent presentations that would be helpful to you all over the next couple of weeks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i see president yee in the queue. >> president ye >> president yee: thanks for the update. just curious, we have some information about the state

unemployment. just wondering, do we have anything local? does san francisco in particular how badly this has hit the unemployment? >> that's a great question, president yee. i don't readily know that. that is an indicator that tends to lag in terms of our ability to receive it. i can get something for you all next week. >> president yee: thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: any comments or questions? i actually want to -- comment. we had a conversation, my staff and the controller's office about how we're filing for reimbursement. and i just thought it would be good information to share with the rest of the budget committee. i was concerned that the

reimbursements will be lump sum coming in after we hit sort of the first wave and we wouldn't get reimbursement in a timely manner, but perhaps the controller office can explain the reimbursement and how we're filing for the reimbursements? >> sure. hi. this is the controllers office. i can speak a little bit to this now. we're happy to provide more information at next week's meeting. in general, for our fema reimbursements, we're submitting a request every two weeks. i believe we've submitted at least two at this point, but we can confirm that. and there is a number of pieces of information that come into that, so it sounds like that would be more of the details about what we're collecting and how we're submitting that would be helpful for the committee. and we can definitely get that for you. >> supervisor fewer: i think that would be great. i'm wondering, are we able also

to know ament 0 -- amount of reimbursements we're actually filing for every two weeks? >> i can tell you that the first one was for $26.5 million. i need to check on the subsequent. i don't want to tell you the wrong number. >> supervisor fewer: sure. i just meant ongoing for the budget committee. we're keeping close watch on because of the budget deliberations in august about how quickly we're getting the reimbursements and an idea how we're replenishing the costs we're putting out. if we could have an update. and when you are submitting those requests for reimbursements, the amount of reimbursements. and then later on if we're receiving those reimbursements and reimbursements to date. >> sure, we'll definitely have that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments or questions

for the controller's office or the mayor's budget office? seeing none, this is open for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 1 of the budget and appropriations committee? >> madame chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operation, please let us know if there are any callers ready? >> madame chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. could i have a second, please? >> second. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, supervisor. madame clerk, roll call vote on the motion. >> on the motion to continue this item to the call of the chair, walton aye. mandelman aye. yee aye. fewer aye.

there are four ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. is there any other business before us today? >> no further business. >> supervisor fewer: we're adjourned. thank you very much. >> this is thursday, april 23, 2020. i will again enter the following

comments into the record that on february 25th, 2020, the mayor declared a state of emergency ey related to the covid-19. since that declaration, the county health officer issued a state-at-home order followed by the governor of the state of california doing the same. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws applicable to boards and missions making it possible to hold this commission hearing remotely. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene through the end of the shelter-in-place order. recogniseing that the commission's consideration of certain projects is an essential government operation, and