>> welcome to the september 23, 2020, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. commission also present is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any

needed legal advice this evening. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by a representative from the city department that will be presenting before the board this evening. scott sanchez, deputy zoning administrator for the planning department. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will be disturb the proceedings. appellants are given seven minutes each to present their case, and people affiliated with these parties must give comments during these seven-minute periods. members of the public have three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. our clerk will give you a warning 30 seconds before your time is up.

if you have questions about the probable cause, please e-mail board staff. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment on each item. [inaudible] a link to the live stream is found on the page of our website at sfgov.org/boa. you can join the meetings by computer. go to our website, sfgov.org sla sfgov.org/boa and click on the meeting link.

or you can call 1-669-900-6833, and enter the webinar i.d. number 800-1340-7141. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star, nine to indicate that you want to speak. please note that there is a delay when the item is broadcast and streamed on t.v. or the internet. it is important that people turn down the volume on their t.v.s or computers, otherwise, there will be feedback on the line. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to

testify. please note that all of those who wish to speak do not have to answer in pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. do you answer or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? you can say yes or nod your head. which will move onto -- we will move onto item one, which is general public comment. this is the chance 23for the public to speak on any item in the board's jurisdiction that does not appear on the calendar. and i believe mr. sanchez has

some comments tonight. >> yes. for those of you that don't know, bob passed away. bob worked at the planning department from july 1960 to may 1999. he served as zoning administrator for more than 29 years, a years. this was a time of unprecedented growth and development in san francisco, but bob guided this city through the time by knowing not only the code requirements but why they existed and could explain it in a plain language to anyone. i don't know how many years you

ultimately spent inside hearing chambers, but i think the number would be considerable. he would not hesitate to say no to a project or to defend the board of the fullest, having sued the department on several occasions and winning those battle doe battles, as well. i had the opportunity to work with bob many years when i was an intern and a training consultant. i remember being amazed at the level of detail that you could recount of these arcane planning code conversations years after the fact. he set the standard for the office of the zoning administrator, one that we can all admire and try to live up

to today. and i would respectfully request that the board consider adjourning the meeting in his honor tonight. thank you. >> thank you. president lazarus, you have your hand raised? >> yes. i'd like to comment, but i can wait until board comments or questions, either way. >> is there any other comment for this item? >> i'd only like to comment on scott's mention of bob passmore. >> please go ahead, mr. chincata. you have three minutes. >> i knew bob well. in fact, i had a conversation with him just about three weeks ago. he was always available. if i needed to ask a question and wanted to know what his thoughts were. i was amazed when he responded to my e-mail by calling me. this really surprises me and really hurts me. i actually was part of one of those lawsuits where he actually sued the board of

appeals. any way, he was really quite brilliant in his job as the zoning administrator, and this makes me sad to hear it. he was really a remarkable planner. >> thank you. is there any other general public comment? please raise your hand. okay. we are moving onto item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions. president lazarus? >> yes. thank you. first of all, scott, thank you for that very lovely and deserving testimonial to bob passmore. like mr. cincata, i've been kicking around city hall since he was there, and he was legendary. i'm not sure they cut people from the same cloth anymore. he was a lot, and he will be

remembered, as scott was saying, for his many contributions, and we are more than happy to adjourn this meeting in his memory. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from vice president honda. >> although scott mentioned it earlier, i'd like to get on the record, i'd like to congratulate my soon-to-be ex-commissioner rachel tanner on her appointment by mayor breed to serve on the planning commission. thank you and congratulations. >> thank you, vice president honda. i appreciate that, your congratulations. >> thank you. any other commissioner comments or questions? okay. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment, so we are going to move onto item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes from

the sept 2, 2020 meeting. >> commission -- september 2, 2020 meeting. >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> okay. is there any public comment on the motion by president l lazarus? okay. seeing none -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion carries, 5-0, and the minutes are adopted. so we are now moving onto item number 4, which is appeal number 20-010, joshua riskin and susan lee, versus the zoning administrator, pealing the issuance on january 9,

2020, to joshua riskin, of a letter of determination that only one garden shed or similar structure is permitted within a required rear yard pursuant to planning code. the subject property contains two such structures within its required rear yard and therefore a variance pursuant to planning code section 305 is required to legalize the second garden shed. we will hear from mr. cincata first. you have seven minutes. we can't hear you, mr. cincata. >> i'll try and make this fast because i want mr. riskin to be able to tell his story what he had to go through for this.

this is usually when i get up here and talk about why we're here today, but this matter is a little unusual. in the exhibit brief i gave you, you'll see the two sheds in exhibit a that i gave you. you can tell in the exhibit that there are no fixed attachments to the ground. those are above the ground on blocks and can be moved anywhere. they're not fixed. you can also tell from one of the exhibits that we have in our brief that there's no neighborhood opposition to this project. all of our neighbors can see it, but it's not intrusive to anybody, and they can see it. why are we here? i'd like to see item number one, please. so the planning code

specifically says that other structures commonly used -- item number one, i'm sorry. items such as gardening and tool sheds are specifically allowed as long as they do not cover more than 100 square feet of land. so the structures here do not violate any of those requirements, and there are should be permitted. we'll get into other issues later. also, with regard to this, building department, in its rules, and that's showing item 3 shows that these types of structures are specifically exempted from requiring a

permit. this is from the building permit guide, the very first item, it says, do not require a permit. these are things not requiring a per milt. this is also in the california building code, section 106-a-2, and again -- so again, why are we here in we've got structures that are permitted, and we are allowed to do structured without permits. the issue that came up with this is the determination in item 4 with regard to what does the interpretation mean. this is what the focus of this decision was and what the focus of the zoning administrator. this is a decision from 1988, an interpretation from 1988, and this is not really an interpretation. if you take a look at it,

interpretations -- and there are hundreds of people in the planning code -- back of the planning code. and i know that many of you board members have seen these interpretations before. some of you have dealt with these interpretations in your other jobs as planning personnel in other occasions, other lawyers. interpretations are just that. they're designed to deal with vagueness or contradictions to the planning code. each of these hundreds of other interpretations describes circumstances and then describes why there is an interpretation necessary to clarify. this does none of that. this purports to change the planning code. despite the plural construction of the planning code, this is trying to say oh, that doesn't matter. i'm changing the planning code with this interpretation so there's only one structure.

that -- the zoning administrator does not have that authority to do that. that's only the board of supervisors that has the authority to change the planning code. this interpretation, mr. sanchez and mr. teague would not today write an interpretation as inko

inconsequential as this one is. eventually, we're going to need to reduce the notice of violation under the building code, for doing without work a permit when a permit is not required. now if there's any time left, i'd like mr. riskin to speak. >> we need to pause the time while we get mr. riskin on. commissioner santacana, did you want to ask a question or did you want to wait? >> mr. riskin, you have 1:49 fast. >> i'll talk fast. my mom is 88, disabled, has advanced dementia and is currently residing in approximaa nursing home that costs about $700 a day. when she comes to live with us,

she will co a second backyard shed seemed like the perfect solutions to store things needed for her day-to-day care. i believe that i'm more than satisfied those expectations by referring to several publications by the city, starting with sfdbi's booklet getting the city permit. this purpose is to assist and simplify the permitting process and educate the homeowners. it says anything about planning interpretations, where the only issue of quantity is mentioned. as a homeowner, i would never know how or where to refer to these complications. on september 2, 2019, when i went to apply for a permit at d.b.i., and i was turned away.

the complaint which triggered the n.o.v. by d.b.i. which triggered a neighbor's concerned over retaining walls and the issue of the two sheds was issued in passing. time? >> yes. >> you'll have time in rebuttal, mr. riskin. thank you. commissioner santa cana, your question? >> yes. i guess what's to stop a homeowner from putting in an unlimited number of 80-square-foot sheds in a yard. what would keep something like that from happening?

you're muted, sir. >> there are limitations on the size of the obstructions are allowed. planning code does limit in size and in height how much square footage can be covered, and certainly, if there was the necessity of reducing it by some number, that would make sense, but this interpretation doesn't do that. this interpretation says only one is permitted. we don't know what the -- you're absolutely right in asking that question because we don't know what the limit is, but we do know that multiple obstructions and multiple corrections obstructions can be permitted. >> so the section 136 says covering up to 100 square feet of land, right? is that the one that says covering up to 100 square feet of land? you can have as many structures

as you want, but you cannot cover more than 100 square feet of land. >> that section uses the plural, by the way, and that section has other other types of obstructions. there are a number of other obstructions in section 136 that are admitted as intrusive in the rear yard. if there was a method for a discretionary review process, because it was excessive, then the discretionary review process could be initiated by a neighbor or by the zoning administrator himself. that that's not what we have here. we have an arbitrary decision that says this is too much. >> well, that's not required, so how would a discretionary

review process ever come about? >> well, i think that the discretionary review process -- i think that -- first of all, i think that this letter, this interpretation of this section needs to be rewrite. >> yeah, i'm not focused on the interpretation. i'd like to know what you think the section means. i understand that you don't like the interpretation. i'm with you there. the section seems, to some degree, ash trahery. what do you think are the number of obstructions in the section that a homeowner could build? >> here's the other problem i see with this. the definitions of structures, which is in section 102 says

that structures -- >> yeah, i know that part of your argument, but that wasn't my question. >> no, but my point would be, to answer your question, i think that this provision of the code should address what a structure is and should require a permit. we have conflicting issues both in the planning code and the building code as to what is a structure and what requires a permit. and i -- i'm only asking for this particular client to have equity done for him. but really, what needs to be done, the definition of structures which requires the definition to be made consistent between the building department and planning department. and secondly, there shouldn't

be any further requirement of how to minimize structures in rear yards in the provisions. you see in these provisions, they limited the height and square footage. in the planning, it says 100 square foot of land. in the building code, it's 100 square feet of roof. these need to be made consistent. when we talked to the planning department, they say it did. >> you agree that the planning department has the right to interpret the section the best it can. these codes are 32 years old. >> yes, i agree that the planning administrator has the right to interpret the planning code.

this is an attempt to change the planning code. mentioning bob passmore tonight, i didn't ask him about this when i talked to him three weeks ago. this would be within his jurisdiction. there's not even an explanation as to the intent behind this provision. >> i think i've got my answer. thank you. >> okay. >> okay. we've got a question from vice president honda and then commissioner tanner. >> okay. how long have those restructur been in the rear yard? >> mr. riskin, you're on mute. >> can you hear me, commissioner? >> now we can. >> they've been in the rear yard since late august of 2019. >> okay. so -- so they were -- after the interpretation was -- and by the way, you have a very tidy

yard. >> oh, thank you. i -- i like my -- i like the way it looks. >> even though my tenure has been close to eight years, this is the first time that this particular issue has been brought up. i was always under the impression that it was under 100 square feet, no permanent foundation, no electrical. thank you for answering, and i look forward to the deputy b.a. clarifying or his interpretation. thank you. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. my question, just to reiterate commissioner s commissioner santacana's question, so it's your interpretation that there could be any number of 100 square foot or less buildings in a rear yard? >> i believe there is a process to prevent -- i don't know if i'm still on. i believe there is a process to prevent that from occurring by the -- by either the code

enforcement provisions -- >> so i can understand [inaudible] where code enforcement [inaudible] but it is your interpretation that if your client wants to do another 1 -- 80-square-foot shed, that that would be allowable? >> i think under the present code, i think it would be allowed, but i don't think that's what was intended. i think under the present code, that's exactly what is allowed. >> okay. thank you for clarifying. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the matter before you is a letter for appeal on the property located at 150

morningside drive. section 136-c-22 allows for other structures commonly used in gardening activities such as greenhouses and sheds if no more than 8 feet in grade and covering no more than 100 square feet of land. there's a long-standing interpretation, over three decades, stating that they can only have one structure that meets this requirement. it's one that commissioner santacana has gotten to the bottom of. if there were no limit, how many could be allowed. by the appellant's logic and argument, it would be an unlimited number, and they're also stating no permit would be required because there is no structure, and no permit is required, and they could cover the yard. if no permit is required, and they could have an unlimited

number, and the city is not allowed to enforce that, there's no purpose for the section. nothing can be developed in the rear yard unless it's allowed by 136. permitted obstructions, only those obstructions specified in section 136 in this code shall be permitted in a rear yard, and no other obstruction shall be constructed, placed, or maintained within any such yard. no boat, trailer, or motor vehicle shall be parked or stored within any such yard except to specify it in section 136. they're arguing very strongly that this is not a structure, and that therefore, it shouldn't be covered under 136 because 136-c-22 sites

structures. if it's not covered under that, then it's simply not allowed at all because only those things which are specifically called out in section 136 are allowed in the rear yard. if they don't fit one of the items in section 136, then, they can't have it at all. then again, the other argument that, you know, it says pull, and they should be able to do whatever they want. the arguments that are put forward by the appel aenlants,s to serve their own needs, and they may have good reasons, but if they fail to follow the

implication of the code, by their own arguments, no permit would need to be issued for any of these structures, and any number of structures would be allowed in a rear yard. you know, i know this issue has come up from time to time, but it has been consistently enforced when the question has been asked, and we can point to that interpretation as we have for more than three decades, and that explains the answer. what we have here, the appellant has two structures that individually meet the requirements. i think they're about 80 square feet each, and less than 8 feet in height.

but under the code, they can't have two or three or five or ten. that's how we have to interpret and enforce the planning code. i would support greater synchronization there between the planning code and building code. on some of these ways, it could be, you know -- my other example is fences. under the building code and their procedures, you don't need a building code for a fence of less than 6 feet in height, and actually, in the building code, if you have a fence on the front back that's solid that's less than 6 feet, that's not allowed. people are responsible for not

only knowing what's in the building code but what's in the planning code. i support certainly do not win we can to increase the knowledge of that, but this is what we have here. thank you. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. commissioner swig? >> yeah, i have a long question and short answer for you, scott, and then, a follow-up question. so i understand exactly what you're saying, and that is, you get one structure and one structure only, and even though the homeowner in this case, as mr. honda has pointed out, a well kept and beautiful backyard where the neighbors have no problem, regardless of that, it still defies the code. and would you agree if we devastated from upholding

your -- your position, that then, by giving this exception forever and forever, we would have homeowners coming in and saying okay, i get to have two, right? because on september 23, 2020, you gave this homeowner the opportunity to have two structures. is that true? >> i strongly agree with that. >> okay. and the follow-up question is, it was pointed out in the documents that, lo and behold, there are multiple people in the neighborhood that have two structures in their backyard. so what's going to happen to those people? that leads to the follow-up position, what about the people that already have two structures in their backyard and they haven't been called

for an n.o.v. by planning or d.b.i.? >> this is not uncommon where people who are called out for a condition and they point out others with the same condition. we operate on reports of violations by properties, and we are called out to review. >> okay. vice president honda? >> mr. sanchez, just to what commissioner swig said. it's similar to vinyl windows. do you tattle on your neighbors and start a property war? if the structures had been there prior to 1988, what would

be the position of the department? was there no rule prior to 1 # 1988, indicating that you could have more than one structure in the backyard? >> i wouldn't have been surprised, you know, in the years before that interpretation was added to the planning code, was that was how it was interpreted and enforced, and win down because the question -- written down because the questions kept coming up. it's not necessarily clear because everything before that is subject to the different interpretation -- >> no, no, i get it. what i'm trying to get at is if the same case came before us, since the house was built in the 1950s, and the structures were put in in the late 1950s, and the code at that time said

you could build it, and we did not have the build rule at that time, so does that mean that that would be grandfathered in? >> yeah. we would go back and see what the code language was at that time, and certainly, in the 50s, it would have been a different requirement, and i don't think we would have had a section 136 at that point in time. i think it came back in the 1960s, but yes, we would go back and look at what the rule was in effect at the time the different structures were installed as well as the permit required at that time, as well. >> thank you. >> okay. commission commissioner santacana? >> so i guess i have a couple of concerns here. this interpretation -- i agree the interpretation doesn't make sense. i don't see why the limitation would be on the number of structures when the code doesn't limit it to a specific number of structures, but it also seems to me like the

easiest answer is you get 100 square feet, period. you want to divide that up into two structures, you can, but you don't get 160 square feet by just being under the 100 limit over and over again. is that -- i mean, is the department going to look at this again or are you sticking with the one structure rule? >> you know, we believe in the interpretation and we'll maintain the interpretation. if the question is asked, you know, whether there could be two structures within that 100 square foot envelope, we could review that, but that's not the question that's before us currently. >> did the homeowner -- how would the homeowner have been aware of the interpretation that's being relied on now before building this structure last year?

>> it's -- in the planning code. it's part of the planning code. it's not hidden anywhere -- >> assuming the interpretations -- >> say that again, mr. sanchez. i think you were interpreted. >> it's a published appendix to the planning code. that's where the interpretation can be found. it's on our website, it's publicly available. >> thank you. commissioner tanner? >> so i want to follow up on commissioner santacana's questioning. i agree with commissioner santacana. i can see why we're not saying you can have as many structures as you want of 100 square feet. i see it as an arbitrary interpretation of it all being

one o one -- within one structure. if i want a shed and a greenhouse, how would i show you where i have one 50-foot shed and one greenhouse? can you explain why the department would stick by, yes, why this is limited to one structure that is 100 square feet or less? >> thank you. well, the question was not posed. so the facts of this is that there are two structures of 80 square feet each. we were not asked the question through this letter of determination if you could have two structures within one 100 square foot footprint. that's why we didn't address

that. it's a very good question and one, if asked, we would review and we could discuss with the zoning administrator, and it may very well be a reasonable interpretation to allow that, but that's not the question we were asked in this letter of determination that's before you on appeal. >> and maybe i missed in the application where you actually see the letter writer's request, so maybe i don't have the benefit of what -- what the question that they asked was. i see the response to it, but do you have a sense of kind of what the substance of their question was or how they phrased it? >> i can pull that up in a minute or two. i do have access to that, and obviously, mr. cicati could

explain that. >> i guess part of me, you know, i would say in the second phrase or second clause of that question if that, indeed, was a question, i would support more than one rear yard garden shed or greenhouse or what-have-you in the 100 square feet again. i think a plain reading of what a structure is would certainly apply. just because something could be moved doesn't mean it is normally moved. it just kind of goes on and on in a little bit of a circu

circuituous route. >> in reviewing and responding to it, we were responding to all the facts that they gave because they were -- you know, they're seeking to have what is their now considered legal, and so that is the framework in which we responded in the letter of determination request, and, you know,

certainly, i could review that, kind of kind of a different request with the zoning administrator whether we could allow two structures immediately adjacent to one other, but one 100 square foot footprint or two shoved together? i think we could review that with the zoning administrator, but that was not something that was addressed with this n.o.v. >> thank you. >> yeah. i mean, it does seem important to me, though, i agree with commissioner tanner. i mean, why this talent is probably wondering now, based on our conversation, if he couldn't just cut his two

structures down to 50 square foot each. he asked the department, look, we're talking about a department that has a lot to do. he did ask, you know, if it's okay. one answer is no because you can only have one. i think there's at least a couple people on this board who think that answer was incorrect and arbitrary, and so i don't know what to do with that. if that answer was wrong, then he needs a new answer that actually tells him what the rule is, and the planning department should be applying that rule to the city in a fair manner. if the rule is not you're limited to one, then what is the rule? that's -- that's sort of what i'm struggling with. you know, maybe the best way to -- >> commissioner santacana, we can't hear you. we lost you. >> sorry. maybe the best way to do this,

and maybe his lawyer or he can tell us if this is his intention now. it seems to me, one thing we could do is deny this appeal, and he could request another letter of determination that says hey, can i do this other thing, and that would require your response. that's one way to do it because there's an n.o.v. out there. it seems to me he got the wrong answer, an arbitrary answer that doesn't actually meet the words of the planning code. look, my neighbor right here has two sheds up right behind this wall. >> where do you live? >> oh, you shouldn't have gone there. >> well, but we're talking about what the rules should be for the whole city, and i don't like the answer that it's just

bad luck. somebody happened to complain about mr. riskin, so we're going to go after him. my neighbor may qualify under the rule that should qualify on or may not. sitting here, i don't know what the rule is. all i know is the interpretation that was issued in 1988 is probably wrong. >> so from what i hear from the board is that, you know, the -- at least from a couple of the members is that potentially, you know, the correct interpretation of this section is that there could be multiple structures within the footprint. that still doesn't -- there's still a violation on this property because what they have doesn't comply with that in any way? b but what the board sees potentially as a reasonable interpretation of this code is they could have multiple structures within that 100 square foot footprint. >> well, that's why i'm saying,

we could deny this appeal and let mr. riskin ask for permission to do something different. i'm not sure, and maybe you can tell me, scott, what happens to the n.o.v. during that intervening period of time. >> he could request another hearing with the department of building inspection. it's on hold with the planning department, so we haven't received enforcement of this. they have a pending hearing with d.b.i., but they could request the matter be continued to allow them to resolve the matter, which happens frequently in these kinds of cases. i don't think a letter of determination is necessarily required. i think mr. cicata could send an e-mail to myself and the zoning administrator after this meeting. we may have a discussion and see that that is a penlly reasonable determination and move forward with that or feel

if we're going to maintain the determination as it is and has been for the last 32 years, then they could go through the process of determination and have it appealed to the board of appeals. that would be options. >> very well. >> president lazarus? >> yeah. i just want to comment, not trying to get too far ahead, i appreciate trying to find creative solutions, but we haven't had rebuttal from either party, so i'd like to conclude the hearing before we get into possible responses. >> thank you. vice president honda? >> thank you. yes, also, i believe that was mentioned in oral statement is thornton thomasetti actual footprint or is it the roof square footage because if it's just the roof square foot agag it's not a one structure, 100

square foot kind of thing. >> the code says covering no more than 100 square feet of land, so by that, we would say to, essentially, the drip line of it, so overhangs, that's how it would be measured. >> but if it's covering 100 feet, it doesn't necessarily mean -- i mean, you could have 10 feet here and 90 feet here. >> i think it would be an impractical solution to say you could have ten square fo10 squ structures. >> it should still be a

contiguous 100 area foot area. >> but it does not clarify contiguous. >> not everything in our code is spelled out as conspicuously as everyone would like, but we have to make certain interpretations otherwise, we'll be here before you guys every week. >> we have one case, we dig in really deep, don't we? >> yeah. i think a way of implementing this, it would be a contiguous amount of area. i don't think anything else would be really reasonable. >> i think bob would be proud of our conversation tonight. >> i hope so. >> okay. we're moving into public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal, mr. cincata or mr. riskin.

you have three minutes. >> i thi-- we only requested t issue of structures to be resolved because the building department gave us a notice of violation for not taking out a permit when it said under the building code we didn't need one. the way to resolve this issue, i believe, is to clarify that -- the determination of what a structure is -- whi[ina] what we're talking about through a zoning review or they're too large a size. but what we were doing is mr. riskin is a conscientious homeowner. he should not need a lawyer to

do a small project on his property and go through the planning code. he was not familiar with the interpretation section of the code. maybe things would have been different if he found that. all of a sudden when someone came out to look whether these structures required a retaining wall, he's in a battle arguing about two structures that are really inconsequential, the answer is, should we break it up into two 50-foot structures? that does not make any sense. i think the way to enforce it is structures be defined similarly, and if we're going to require a permit for it, okay.

mr. riskin tried to take out a permit for it. no one in the department would give him one. we're in a catch 22 here. he has no permit. he wanted to take out a permit, and there's no way for the permit to enforce this that way. there's no permit required, but if there is a permit required, can we go by the zoning administrators determination that these are structures, then, the requirements of the 25% rear yard clearing and how many structures permitted would be possible. i really think it's -- i think it's absolutely clear that he's entitled to the structures there, and i think it's really just a question of interpreting the planning cold as it's written with no regard to the

interpretation from 1988 and what it means. the planning code does require interpretation in these kinds of circumstances. >> okay. thank you. commissioner tanner? >> i have a question, mr. riskin. you're hearing the conversation. a result maybe would be that you have 100 square feet available. whether you decide to buy a new shed that's 100 square feet or you keep that one and add 30 square feet. how are you thinking of interpreting that possibility? is he still with us? >> he's on mute. >> okay. >> hi. >> hello. >> the outcome i'm hoping is just to be able to keep the two sheds. you know, listen, i've got a

mom that requires tons of things to take care of herself, that a caregivers going to need to access day-to-day. we're talking about bedding, boxes of food, we're talking about boxes of depends, mattresses, walkers, hauer lifts. we're talking about more stuff that needs to go into this shed than fills up a room, and that's just for her day-to-day care. she cannot walk. she has did ementia. she does not have a lot of money to pay for her care. i'm hoping that we can keep these two sheds because we need them. >> completely understood. i will just say, from my perspective. i don't know if this body can provide the relief that your attorney is speaking, in terms of changing the matter overall.

that matter lies with the legislative branch and board of supervisors and planning commission. but i think what some of us are thinking, myself and commissioner santacana, as least, in a more accurate interpretation, you can have more than one structure of up to 100 square feet, which in this case would be one of your sheds and a little bit more. i know you want to keep both, but that may not be the relief that we can provide. that's something that's on my mind, and i understand your perspective. >> adding another shed, going through this whole process -- can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> going through this whole process, each shed is about $4200 each. we're talking about a lot of money just to put up a shed that, you know, we can't really afford to go through this again. it's just a process that it's

very frustrating and very heartbreaking that we have to put on this kind of -- you know, that i have to go through this just in order to have a place to put my mom's stuff. and the possibility of spending more money is just, like, you know, i -- something i really don't want to do. i would just -- you know, i've already paid through the nose just to be here today, just to -- just to get before you guys just so i can take care of my mom. >> yeah, yeah. >> it doesn't -- it doesn't make sense. i want to add one more thing, i just need to point out that the inspector did not even know where to find the planning code interpretations on-line. he had to go to his office, get the print out from his supervisor, and send it to me. so i disagree with mr. sanchez in terms of the planning code

interpretations being readily available to some ordinary joe guy who's got a mom, trying to take care of his homom, homeowr in the city of san francisco. it's just not there. >> i can understand and certainly appreciate that the code is hard to find, even for professionals. thank you very much. >> yeah, and i'm sorry if i'm a little emotional about this. my kid gets on my case because i raise my voice -- >> no, i think you're expressing the emotion of the situation and its effect on you and your family. we thank you for being before us. that's all my question. >> commissioner santacana? >> mr. riskin, because of a couple of the things you said, i want to understand the cr chronology here. you went to the building

department before putting up the shed? you're on mute again. i'm sorry. >> okay. so the chronology of events is i referred to getting a city permit as far as the sheds were concerned. i was originally told by our backyard contractor that in order to lay concrete, it had to be a certain amount less -- it had to be below a certain amount of square footage -- which it is, by the way. so that got me thinking, i better check for getting a city mer mitt to make sure that the plans that i have for this yard are going to be -- you know, i'm not going to get any flags to, i'm not going to get in trouble for doing this. so after that, i called, excuse me, the shed shop and said, okay, can you build me a couple of sheds? i'm redoing our backyard.

our backyard looks worse than the pictures that you see that the mars rover sends back from mars, and we want to redo our yard. >> mr. riskin, just to be clear, i guess i'm not clear now. you went to the building department to put the sheds up, is that true or false? >> oh, you mean afterwards. i'm sorry. i misunderstood you. >> sir, i'm sorry. it's a yes or no question. you went to the building department to seek a permit after the sheds were already there. >> yes, that is correct. >> okay. did you at any point talk to the building department or any city agency about the sheds before putting them up? >> only to the inspector that came to visit after i received -- after we received the complaint, but not before.

i just referred to the material that was available on-line. i didn't actually speak to anyone. >> you didn't require and say look, i want to do this. do you know if it's legal? >> no. i looked at the booklet. i looked at the booklet that said you don't need a permit. >> okay. >> sorry for the long answer. >> it's okay. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. three minutes for rebuttal, mr. sanchez. >> thank you. don't have much to add. i think the letter of explanation is pretty self-explanatory. i think you're concerned with the brevity of it, but i think the commissioners have highlighted without the interpretation, you're left to the potential of having an unlimited number of structures in the rear yard. if you're saying that each

structure wouldn't require a permit, you wouldn't have the ability to say no to it. even further, these structures aren't subject to 311, so if you comply with 136-322 for the shed structure, no neighborhood notice is required, so your neighbors would never know even if you came in for a work permit. i'm very sympathetic to the appellant's need for these two tru structures, but we have to enforce the law otherwise, we'll have an issue across the city. that may be an issue that the board of supervisors wants to take on, and they may want to make modifications to the rear yard requirement or the permitted structures requirement, but it goes beyond what an interpretation should do, and there's been concerns raised by mr. cincata that this

exceeds the authority, but exceeding the authority would mean there's no rear yard requirement for any of this. so i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. i see a question from commissioner tanner? >> so not to belabor the issue, one of the things that the permit holder was saying was interpretation what's in the planning code, at least the part that's in the letter references commonly used in gardening activities, and it lists the shed, the greenhouses, as two examples of that. and then, in the guide, which i'm assuming is the current gi guide to getting a permit issued by the department of building inspection.

that very first item which then led him not to seek further permit because it's not required, defined structures, including workshops, play houses, and the like. now some of those are stimilar structures. a workshop, a shed, they're four walls and a roof of -- similar to sheds. so how does that go to planning code section 136? >> so they have different requirements. we can't have complete

synchronicity. playground equipment and recreational equipment is a separate section of 136. it's dealt with in section c-20 which allows for recreational equipment, play equipment, things like that. i would say the workshop would be analogous to the workshop. so you could have the workshop or garden shed or greenhouse that is up to 100 square feet. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. i don't see any further questions, so commissioners, this matter is submitted -- oh, we do have a question from commissioner swig. >> i was ready to comment, the next section. >> okay. so commissioners, this matter's submitted, and the standard of review is error or review for

discussion. >> commissioner swig? >> you know, quite often, things are not there, and this is not there. i'm sympathetic to the homeowner and sympathetic to his position, and it's very unfair, and it's unfortunate. that being said, i have to support the position of the planning department on this, and it's a consistent position that i take because if we are sympathetic and are pliable to everything that's not fair, then, we're going to undermine the rules of the planning department, and next week, we're going to have somebody with two sheds, three sheds, four sheds, saying september

23, you did he have yeviated, the same thing. i'm incredibly sympathetic to the homeowner, but i think in this case, it's clear that one shed is what the rule is, and even though it doesn't make sense, even though it isn't fair in the context of this particular situation, i still have to go in the direction of denying the appeal and finding the determination letter was correct. if we move to the point of a motion, i'd like to -- i would suggest adding some language for further review to clarify any ambiguities that we have run into during this hearing. >> commissioner honda? >> commissioner honda -- vice president honda, you're on

mute. >> thank you. you're right. love the skozoom thing. i see it a little different. i think there is a little discrepancy in the number of sheds, but i think no matter what, the clarity of 100 feet, whether it's a roof line or multiple sheds or one shed is pretty clear. and i am very sympathetic. i am moving my 86-year-old father from hawaii this month. i understand all the walkers and the fun things, that we become the parents. after a while, the roles reverse. but we do have a couple options, i think.

we could move this to the call of the chair, and he could have the use of these while he needs them. there was a big expense to create these sheds, and evidently, according to the briefs, there's multiple homes with these sheds, with multiple sheds, and as commissioner santacana says, his neighbor has two sheds, as well. we could hold this over for a couple of years, at which point, one of those would have to disappear without determination of any legality. >> commissioner santacana? >> actually, i have a question for mr. sanchez.

scott, are you there? >> i'm here. >> i'm sorry. >> it's all right. >> i'm looking at this code again, and i just want to make sure i understand something. how many playgrounds can someone have under 136-d? >> it does not establish a numberical limit under 136-d-20. >> and what about a gazebo? >> so under -- >> they're under 60 square feet of land. so could you have multiple

gazebos under c-22? >> it doesn't establish a height or area limitation there. there's also landscaping and gardening furniture. you know, what establishes the limits is the garden structures. let's see...under c-23, i think we would apply the interpretation of no more than one structure to 22 and 23, as well, because -- yes c-23 is where this is. anything that's going to be subject to the area limitation, you're limited to covering that amount of area, and no more. so you could have a garden structure that is no more than 60 area feet, plus, you could have a gardening -- a greenhouse that is 100 square feet, that would be allowed, but you couldn't have

multiple -- >> well, a play place plus fences -- you could have one of each of these, essentially. >> yes. you could certainly have multiple things. there are interpretations that state that, you know, there's some things that you can't accrue and have multiple of. like, there's -- you know, there's big windows is also in here with a 12-foot pop out. so you can't have the bay window with a pop out at the end of that. but you can have a deck no more than 3 feet in height. you can put a hot tub there. you could also have a garden shed in the back, at least one of them not exceeding 100 square feet. so those are allowed. >> sorry. i don't know if you could fit all that. i don't know that mine would. so i think i understand your position, and, you know, if i wanted to build two miniature

gazebos for my kids, and i didn't use up more than 60 square feet of land, you don't how that would work out. >> that still doesn't address the condition of the appellant because they need the two 80 square foot structure. if they can do an 80 square foot structure and a 20 square foot structure, we can have the discussion later. >> or a 100-square foot shed and a 60 square foot gazebo. that would be allowed under the

code. >> but there's lots of things under c-26. not everyone will use automatic of them in every case -- will use all of them in every case. >> i think this is a really tough time for families, and i am -- i am actually troubled by this. i think mr. riskin's lawyer took the tack of saying this is a silly case. i actually don't think it's a silly case. we see a lot of cases that seem really small, but they're actually really big to the people that have them, and they also have significant impacts to the rest of the city, and so we have to make a decision considering not only the inequities in your decision but also the probability overall is going to change the lives of

other people, dtoo. this is one of those cases where i want you to have what you need to take care of your mother during an unprecedented time during our lives and affecting our families, but at the same time, we have to stick to the rule of law. i don't know where that leaves me. i find myself confused about what to do here because i think the planning department gave you the wrong answer, i really do. i think they committed an error, and there's a part of me that wants me to ask them to fix it and just take it from there. there's a part of me that, we'll deny the appeal but deal with it in three years. there's a part of me, deny the appeal and you can just submit another letter for determination, but there is an absurdity to your lawyer's interpretation of the code. there's also absurdity to the

code itself. the fact that you could have an 80 square foot shed and a 60 foot gazebo, which you could use it for storage, but you can't have 280 foot sheds. that -- two 80-foot sheds. that's where i'm at. >> i have a question for scott. this situation has not come before the board of appeals before. but are you aware of it being challenged or discussed in any other situation? >> well, the question has come up, and we point to the interpretation. usually, it's a question of people maxing it out, so they're wanting a 100 square foot shed, and they want to know how many of those 100 square foot sheds can i have. i can't remember a question, can i have two sheds in a 100

square foot footprint. that's not a question that's come up, and i don't know that's what the appellant wants. i think the appellant wants to have the two 80 fasquare foot structures that are there now. which no think he is allowed to have that. i've been working at the counter years ago, and this question has come up. it's not that often, but under the interpretation, you can have one 100 square foot structure. >> so this is the first lime that an l.o.d. has been issued on this particular topic? >> yeah. usually, people ask the question, the answer is given, it's accepted. this is a 30-year-old interpretation. i think people can see that

it's reasonable, that if -- if not one, how many can i have. it's not a rear yard requirement. i don't think i remember it being challenged other than a question at the counter. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner? >> so i think to commissioner santacana's point, i see two paths. the one that you and i are in agreement on is the fact that there was an error. there could be any number of structures that total 100 square foot of coverage in the rear yard, at least in this particular category of structures, the shed, greenhouse, gardening related structure. providing some guidance for other people in the city would not provide any guidance in

this case in that they would need to remove one of the sheds or alter it so it was severely restricted in size. i'm looking at continuing it to the call of the chair and making no determination beyond this ticklparticular letter ho in this case. my compassion would lean me towards what vice president honda had suggested as an actual remedy to this particular instance. it would not remedy any other instances, though, unfortunately. >> commissioner swig, do you have a question or comment? >> yeah, it comes down to two

paths. i think -- yeah, i thought i muted. it comes down to two paths. i thought rachel says three. it comes down to two paths. it's either the one i suggested, which is to deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination because that is the statute. and again, i don't like it, it's not fair. it shows no compassion whatsoever, but it's what we do. we follow the law. the other path is the call of the chair. i love calls of the chair, and to enable a three-year term -- i'm being arbitrary, to sustain that -- that shed -- those two sheds in that location pending further determination and clarification by the planning department. why i favor that compassionately and in my soul

is, for the obvious reasons. why i don't like that is that i'm continually haunted by next week, somebody else is going to come up here with a similar letter of determination, saying well, you did it on september 23, why don't you do it for me? and that's the only thing that -- that puts a -- puts a problem with that latter path. but i'm -- again, i'm not against it, i'm just putting that out there for further discussion and consideration by the commissioners. i can go either way. >> so is anybody inclined to make a motion? >> i will, since that was my idea. i will -- would we accept the appeal or would the actual motion be to continue -- >> continue it. >> continue to the call of the

chair. can i put an expiration date of 36 months? is that possible. >> sure. do you want to say to the earlier of either a planning department clarification on the issue or 36 months? >> i'd say 36 months, and the reason i'm doing it is because there was some confusion initially. i don't believe the appellant was gaining the system, and the time needed to create the storage, we're giving some relief to the confusion, and then hopefully, the department will clear up that confusion, but it will not affect the ruling for 36 months. >> mr. sanchez has his hand up. i'd like to hear his comments to this. >> some clarification for the board. does this mean we are to suspend this case for the next

three years, and application and determination of the code remain valid? also, this is an appealable letter of determination. this is not an enforcement action, often we have cases before you that are n.o.v.s, and the board may put some compliance time in there or continue the matter, but this is just a letter of determination. this has nothing to do with the phone ersment case which is pending at d.b.i. there is an -- with the enforcement case, which is planning at d.b.i. there is an enforcement case, but hasn't gone anywhere. >> basically, what i'm trying to do, mr. sanchez, is i'm trying to suspend the enforcement for 36 months. to me, i do think that the planning department does need clarification regarding one

structure, two structure. i do understand there's 100 square foot there from the roof line. i think the interpretation should be clear, but in this particular case, my motion is really to suspend any enforcement for 36 months. >> if i may butt in, sorry to rachel and everyone who has their hands up. what if we deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination? what actually happens? there is no enforcement? what happens? tell us. >> if the -- i understand, you know, the direction of the afford is to have enforcement stays for three years. the letter of determination is not an enforcement determination. it's a determination of the code, and i think the code is correctly applied, whether there may be a debate over

whether -- how many structures. i could discussion with the zoning administrator about staying any action on our part. it's a separate matter for the department of building inspection. that would need to have a conversation with them, so, you know, i understand that the goal of the board is to provide some time for these structures to exist, for their uses to be served, but yeah, i -- some of it is beyond what is contained in this letter of de determination. it's a separate conversation that's with the department of building inspection that's not the conversation tonight. it's separate from the determination at hand. >> so it's -- while we're trying to do something good, i see we might be doing something

bad, and the something bad -- first of all, if we deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination, that we will be undermining your code, and tomorrow, and the next day, people are going to be coming in, saying why can't you do it for us? secondly, we don't prevent an action requiring that those -- one of those structures be taken away because there would be no action as a result of us upholding your letter of determination, but in fact, the action is going to come out of d.b.i. and really, maybe, what we should be doing is upholding

your letter of determination and then nod, nod, wink, wink, to the property owner, appeal -- appeal your issue with d.b.i. and come back and have the same hearing all over again where it may be more appropriate for us to do a call of the chair and postpone the demise of one of those structures. what is your preference? >> i'd defer to your deputy city attorney. whether it may be possible to uphold the determination so it is found to be a correct interpretation, the board could state that the zoning administrator should further review whether you could have one or multiple structures within the 100 square feet, but as part of that motion, you could also request -- i don't think you could require, but you could request that the city

agency does not enforce on this for a three-year period, and i would defer to your deputy city attorney if you think that would be something that would be achievable under this process. >> brad. >> good evening, commissioners. brad russi from the city attorney's office. i don't think there would be anything prohibiting you from making a recommendation on that, but it wouldn't be binding on d.b.i.-planning, it would just be a recommendation. >> commissioner tanner, did you have a question? >> yeah. i guess, thank you, mr. sanchez for eliminating and mr. swig speaking into the details, that's often where we have the impacts. i -- you know, based on the discussion that i'm hearing at least in that the call of the

chair would not really give what we're perhaps seeking from that motion or that action i would propose that we -- i'm not sure if it would be to uphold the letter of determination, but not say only one garden shed. it still does not provide you, mr. riskin from the release of having to decrease or getting rid of one of your sheds. that would be on the other end of the n.o.v. if they chose to hear that and grant your appeal, that's some relief. but i think the code is in error. i don't think it's limited to one structure of 100 square feet, but i don't know what -- >> you'd have to appeal and

revise the l.o.d. >> yeah. i don't know if vice president honda made a motion or talked about a motion. but that would be the motion that i would make if others would be supportive. >> yeah, and i have a question, so i'm going to jump in here. i think it is commissioner santacana brought up the possibility of another l.o.d., that might inspire planning, as it were, to make another determination. does that make any sense at all? >> yeah. i think we can have a conversation after the hearing between the zoning administrator and myself to get a hearing. it may be such that you could find that you could have

multiple structures up to the 100 square foot if provided it's in a continuous area, you know, or may be something different. if it's one where we say no, it still has to be a single structure, and if you have 80 square feet, you can't have another two square foot next to it, then we can do a new letter of determination and appeal that to the board of appeals. i understand, and i'm sympathetic to the homeowner and the money and time that he's spent already, but it's not going to get him to where he wants to be at the end of the day. that's kind of where we are on that front. i am to be cognizant of the process of the time that

appellant has spentd on this and could spend on this question. >> [inaudible]. >> sorry. you weren't clear, commissioner santacana. >> has the time for the n.o.v. passed? >> i don't know where the department of building inspection is in that process. i can only speak to our process, and we have not issued any n.o.v. on that process. >> this has been pending to deal with the n.o.v. may i also suggest you can continue this matter while

addressing the n.o.v. and mailing it to you. that may be another solution? >> that would be my next solution. >> commissioner swig, did you have another question or comment? >> let commissioner santacana finish his interruption, and i'll follow up when he's done. >> i guess i was going to say that doesn't address the enforcement issue. it seems to me that -- i'm inclined to grant the appeal and recommend publicly that this -- this would move any enforcement action to the call of the chair if it were to come to us. >> yeah -- are you done? >> yes. >> i would go in the opposite direction and deny the appeal, uphold the letter of determination with the recommendation to planning department and d.b.i. that they

not -- that they waive enforcement of this particular action of the determination of the rules. >> vice president honda, do you want to -- >> i lowered my hand. >> vice president honda, do you have your hand up? >> i just lowered my hand. >> yes, thanks. is there a motion? >> yeah. i think i made a motion to deny the appeal, uphold the letter of determination with a recommendation to the planning department and d.b.i. to postpone enforcement of the removal of one of the structures, and scott, can you help me finish that?

'cause i think you made a that i liked, or i can just say until further letter of determination is resolved. but scott, if you have a better way of finishing it. >> ultimately, the board is going to request that the city hold in abeyance any enforcement action on the property. i think tying it to a new determination -- >> okay. i'll stop there. with a recommendation to d.b.i. and planning that they do not enforce removal or action on this for a period of 36 months. >> scott, did you have something you were about to say at the end of that?

>> i think it would be better to have them together. we can't really have two separate motions. >> we can't have two separate matters before us. >> he's making it with the recommendation, which is nonbinding, but -- >> just don't believe in the letter of determination, so is sort of puts -- >> we can call the vote. i'm not supportive, either. >> awwe have a motion from commissioner swig to uphold the

letter of determination with a further recommendation that the planning department and department of building inspection postpone any enforcement of the removal of the shed for a period of 36 months. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion fails. do we have another motion? >> i would make a motion that we grant the appeal and direct the planning department to make a determination that the total

square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet, but more than one structure can be allowed, and the department of building inspection hold in abeyance enforcement of this action for 36 months. >> i'd like to hear from mr. sanchez. >> would that be one contiguous 100 square feet, so any number of structures, but within a contiguous area, so rather than having pock marked structures throughout the yard? >> i will accept that amendment to my interaction. i will, for the record, i find

that to be perhaps not clearly stated in the code, but in the spirit of incremental change, i would say contiguous 100 square feet. >> okay. commissioner santacana, your hand is raised. >> so i guess, commissioner tanner, my preference would be not to say to you the planning department should interpret the code, connell that they need to take another look at it. i may be wrong, but i think typically that would be a more appropriate way to do it because we can't think of all of the different things that they're going to have to consider in coming up with a new interpretation. >> that's true. i think my focus is i want to make sure that we are not agreeing that this is a structure -- like hey, this

structure is not a structure, and therefore, these rules don't apply. we think the coverage of the structures is limited to 100 square foot. i don't think that closes the door to future interpretations or corrections. >> usually, the board doesn't remand something back to a city agency to reconsider. the board is making a determination, and in this case, whether there was error abuse, and usually, we get pretty clear direction from the board how to proceed. i guess one option, not to

extend this beyond tonight, but if you would like to continue this item -- and i'm getting some direction from the board as to -- the direction from the board would be to continue this item, and you directing city staff to review this interpretation and possibly come up with an alternate interpretation to account for multiple structures, and how would we doe tha that, and we o that and come back to you with more specifics at. this is additional time and cost for the appellant, and this still does not get them those two structures. we're spending a lot of time on this debate of one or two structures, which is their request, but the answer that we're coming towards is not

helping them, so there's separate issues. >> i totally agree with you. i see you nodding your head, vice president honda. did you have any comments on that? >> i'm in agreement with commissioner santacana. i believe the l.o.d. is flawed. if we start with that, the l.o.d. is flawed. where there's two structures. i think that the code is not clear, and the l.o.d. is flawed. if we support the l.o.d., we continue the flaw, and then, it leaves the door open for further issues down the road. >> so do you have an issue with scott's recommendation of continuing this item? >> i don't. and again, as mr. sanchez said, i don't think it's going to give remedy to this particular person. i would love to, but the l.o.d., it has an issue, and i agree. i would allow the department to have some time to clarify that.

and then, he still has the n.o.v. that we'll address later on with someone else, i guess. >> mr. sanchez. >> so this l.o.d. responds to a specific set of circumstances. you know, certainly, if the board were to uphold the letter of determination tonight, and we get a different question after this hearing, we can review that and make that determination independent of the board being involved in that. they can ask the question to us tonight or we can continue this item and have another hearing after we review it internally,

but i feel it's more time and expense if we have another hearing. >> commissioner santacana? >> that is why the motion that i would make is we grant the appeal that on the grounds that while the planning department was correct with the respect to the definition of structure, the remainder of their interpretation is not correct. there's nothing else we need to do other than issuing the waiver of the enforcement of 36 months. the point is just to say, this one is wrong on this particular issue, so we've granted the appeal, and also here's what we think about the enforcement and that's the end of the case. lawyers cost money, and there's no reason to bring mr. riskin back here -- we're not the city

awa 's lawyers. it's not our job to define the planning code. >> commissioner tanner. >> i agree with that. i'm not sure that what happens with this letter that exists, it just goes in the trash bin, i'm not, and this that causes the approximaellant to go throe need [inaudible] you know, just choose to if the abeyance is upheld or the determinations the recommendation of course, and in three years, they may do whatever they want. i'm okay with that, but i'm not sure what happens with this letter, if it just disintegrates? part of it disintegrates? none of it disintegrates, and that's where i was trying to be specific in what part is

erroneous, and. >> so i guess that does raise a question for me. if we grant the appeal [inaudible]. >> can you repeat yourself, please? you had a bad connection. >> i'm sorry. can you hear me now? >> yes. >> okay. if we were to grant the appeal and find that the zoning administrator erred or abused discretion then the two structures would be allowed to stay back there? >> i think the out come would be for these two structures would be one of them still

needs to go unless they take the recommendation and do not enforce. they have to get rid of one of the structures and they have 20 square feet left, whether it's another structure of 20 square feet or one of 100 square feet? >> mr. sanchez, did you want to respond? >> i appreciate that then throws it back to the city to some extent, but we're left without a resolution. the first part is a structure, and that argument is fine. if the second part is struck down, and we don't know the board's reasoning, that has a negative impact on the city, and -- in terms of how do we implement this tomorrow when

when someone comes to the counter and says, i saw this last night, and you did it for them, so you have to do it for me. whether it's revising the interpretation as commissioner tanner suggested, along those lines to, you know, further clarify, that's one solution or, you know, simply upholding the l.o.d. and the questions -- the different questions is asked by mr. cincata, a different e-mail -- there's resolutions both ways, but i'm concerned about what happens, you know, tomorrow when someone tries to come in for application and how do we apply the code there? >> commissioner tanner? >> so i would like to hear from mr. riskin and his lawyer just very briefly, and then i would like to make a motion regarding

any of their commentary that they might provide, whether they would prefer to come back to a hearing, or a resolution this evening, even if that does not result in the allowing of both sheds. >> i'll make a brief comment and then i'll let mr. riskin comment, as well. i think a continuance is preferred, but i think an interpretation is not helpful. i think something was already pointed out by mr. sanchez is there are other structures that might be possible. we took two walls off one of those and put some of the storage shed in that. we might be permitted to have this much, but i think we can talk to the department about that going forward.

if you want to continue it while we talk about that, i think a more definitive answer would be helpful tonight, and asking to defer making a recommendation to the department. the department, they're only enforcing this provision because they've been told it's an interpretation to the planning code. they have no other reason to be involved in this as far as they're concerned. >> all right. thank you, mr. riskin, did you want to respond, what you -- you know, would you prefer to have this tight continued, which means coming back here for another hearing, or a resolution which may result not in the retention of both of those structures, but could result in the department of building inspection following the board's recommendation.

>> so i'm going to go on the recommendation of what david says. there is becoming overwhelming -- this is becoming overwhelming to me, all the terms that are being tossed around. i'd be all right with tossing this out 36 months without enforcement assuming nothing gets changed. i'm happy with -- i think i'm just going to have to go along with what david said because he's my legal counsel, my legal advice. the other thing is what if i just painted it pink, put a couple of swings on it and called it a play structure?

there's no limitations? it said -- >> i think mr. riskin, i cannot find what you need to do to transform one structure into another structure. we can grant your appeal, that's what -- the motion that i'm going to make, and find that the planning section and interpretation of it does allow for more than one structure of up to a contiguous 100 square feet. it doesn't let you keep both of your sheds under that determination, however, we are requesting as a board to our sister agency, the planning department, and the department of building inspection, they do not enforce the notice of

violation. that is a matter that we cannot decide tonight. we can only really decide on the letter of determination. so with that, commissioners, i'm going to make a motion to grant the appeal and to ask that the letter of determination be revised or direct that the letter of determination be revised that one structure of 100 continuous square feet is allowed under planning code 136-b-23 and that the planning department and department of building inspection deny enforcement on this property for 36 months on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his

interpretation of the planning code. >> commissioner swig? >> can i ask -- >> yeah, go ahead. >> mr. sanchez, what does that do to you? does it undermine you in the way that you're hearing or is that okay or are you worried about people coming in tomorrow and filing more like that. >> i'm not afraid of tomorrow, no. i appreciate the -- the board's direction. i think, you know, with commissioner tanner's motion, it's reasonable, and it provides a resolution to this. i understand it's not the exact resolution that the appellant seeks, but, you know, it is -- it is a resolution to that question, and, you know, i will discuss with the zoning administrator the enforcement requests that the board is

making, and we will discuss that with d.b.i. with the tolling for three years. >> but does it prevent that which is your fear and my fear, which is that we set a precedent, and we may regret, and it won't be -- and the situation may be different like mr. riskin's situation with his mother, that somebody just wants to do it. >> moving forward, the interpretation would be such that you're allowed multiple structures to satisfy the requirements of 136-c-23, but you're still limited to the area requirement, sand those structures will be contiguous. i think that's reasonable and maintains the intents of this

section having a structure or structures out there to service the area in the backyard. >> if you're comfortable, i'm comfortable. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner, did you want to modify your motion to say multiple -- one structure to multiple structures? >> i said more than one. >> and can you just clarify what basis the zoning administrator erred? >> the way the code does not specify that only one structure is required. [inaudible]. >> okay. >> sorry. that doesn't specify the number of structures that are allowed.

>> okay. okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal, and issue the letter of determination on the condition it be revised to allow more than one structure provided the structures are contiguous and a maximum of 100 square feet on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his interpretation of the code because the code does not specify the number of structures allowed. is that correct? okay. on that -- on that motion -- [roll call]

>> okay. that motion carries, 5-0. and as a reminder, we were going to conclude the hearing in honor of robert passmore, president lazarus. >> thank you. >> thank you, guys. >> we're adjourned in memory of long time city administrator. >> thank you. thank you, everyone. >> thank you, good night. >> good evening.

>> chair ronen: good morning.

the meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 21, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. with me on the call is rules committee vice chair catherine stefani and supervisor gordon an m mar. i would like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? yes, d >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 emergency, city hall and offices are closed. members will participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and other various cable channels and sfgov sfgovtv.org are streaming the

numbers across the stream. public comment and opportunities to speak are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-844-9547. again, that's 146-844-9547. then press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are you speak slowly and clearly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit your comments via e-mail to me

at victor.young@sfg.org. comments submitted to me will be included as part of the file. that concludes public comments. >> chair ronen: thank you. can you please call items 1 and 2 together. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair ronen: thank you so much, and we'll start with mr. harrington. you're back. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you so much for taking this up today. >> chair ronen: of course. >> i'm happy to start with comments or questions, whatever

you prefer. >> chair ronen: we'll start with your statements. >> okay. i have a long history with the city. i have a history and a love for the organization. just briefly, so if you're looking at the different values i bring to this, and i want to talk about three different things to talk about three different parts of the organization. one is the concern for the environment, and so clearly, when we impact so many lands and water ways, like the p.u.c. does, there's always a bit of attention between trying to make sure we're taking care of those lands and taking care of these water ways and our obligation to our kpust custom and some of that tension is bubbling up right now. but one of the things that i

always prided myself being able to do was working through things like that. i hope to bring that to the organization. another is environmental justice. we have not always been the best neighbors when you look at the having a treatment plant in the bayview-hunters point, before i left, whie started to put in digesters in that area in san francisco. but we are still in their neighborhoods with a wastewater plant, so we need to figure out how to be better neighbors in terms of what we do. the third issue is kind of rate fairness on the power side. i think it's pretty clear to most people, any way, that you can run a public power agency,

you can have it cheaper, you can have a better green mix. they do it in l.a. and sacramento and silicon valley. the real problem is how do we get it there? how do we buyout pg&e, and how do we do that without causing rate shock, which is something that i would be focused on. again, i'm here today because i love the p.u.c., the communities that we work with, the staff that are there, and i'm grateful if you would let me work with them again. >> chair ronen: fantastic. it's so good to see you again. i have two questions. one is to your last point, if

you could tell us a little bit more. it sounds like you're very open to the city acquiring pg&es structures to distribute energy, but of course we have to do so in a responsible way and address all those issues that you brought up. i just want to make sure -- confirm what i heard you say and make sure i heard correctly. >> sure. when i was there [inaudible] until something else happened and delayed that for a while, and the only reason for doing that was on the way towards really running your own power operation. it is a better way to do for the people, it is a better way to do it for the environment, sure. >> chair ronen: fantastic. couldn't agree more. and then, the second question that i had for you is, you know, because you've been the director of the p.u.c., and now, assuming we confirm your -- your -- your appointment, we would have two

former directors on the p.u.c. board, and is that a little bit too many cooks in the kitchen? that's my concern, is that we'd have, you know, a general manager, and then two former general managers on the board. how would that affect you as a general manager, and do you think that's a little bit too much? love to hear your thoughts on that. >> it's a very fair question, supervisor. when i was city manager, i argued with the mayor to appoint andy moranz. i guess there's a couple of things. one is i've always been somebody who has a job, and then, when you leave the job, you have faith in those that follow and they're in charge, and you're not. it's great that i talk to ben

rosenfield every once in a while, but i would never just butt into your world. i'm really clear about that. other thing is there are some departments in the city. the p.u.c.s division goes -- they go out 20 or 30 years. you just don't pick up the knowledge of the hydrology of the public utilities commission overnight, so i think there's a reason to not be as concerned in this case, but i totally understand why it could be a

concern. >> chair ronen: do any of my colleagues have any questions? >> supervisor stefani: yes. just to follow up on what you're saying to having led the p.u.c., i thought it kind of an advisory council, you know, that people that leave are there to experience and guide. you are a former controller, manager of the p.u.c. i remember when i came here in 2007 and just remember hearing so many good things about ed harrington. obviously, the concern for the environment, we can't say that enough, given the fact that the sky went dark, we can't go outside, we can't run. we need people like that in all

sorts of places. environmental justice. i think you were here when i worked for michaela, and remember we were so adamant we weren't going to have those coal fired electric plants, and then, i've had constituents that have challenged that -- they weren't my constituents, they were michaela's. so i think your ability to approxima serve on the p.u.c., it's undeniable. i have no questions, only the deepest admiration and support, and i'm thanking the mayor again for appointing you. >> thank you, supervisor. >> chair ronen: supervisor mar, did you have anything to add? >> supervisor mar: yeah, thank

you, supervisor ronen. thank you, mr. harrington for your years of service and high-level service to our community, and thanks for your willingness to step back in to the important role at the p.u.c. i just had one question. as you're aware this year, we've been dealing with a number of crises in the city, unprecedented, but one of them has been around a crisis in -- in faith in our government, and, you know, as the -- the federal corruption investigation, you know, you know, has been playing out over the last seven months, and that's really lead to charges and directly impacting many of our key departments here in the city with documented evidence

of corruption and -- and particularly around contracting, you know, the public works department, d.b.i., and the mayor's office of neighborhood services. and so even in july, you know, there was a federal subpoena that extended to the p.u.c., and there's an ongoing investigation now, so i just wanted to see what your thoughts are around, you know, the federal investigation into corruption here, and that's now extended to the p.u.c. >> sure, supervisors. so there's many different examples of fraud and corruption in several departments of the city.

when i went to the p.u.c., i added an audit function there because we were spending $3.5 milli $3.5 billion of rate payer money to upgrade the system, and we had had some scandals there. one of the things that i did was i set up a system of meetings and trainings for anybody in the public utilities commission to design anything: time sheets, purchase orders, contracts, everything. and we went through and did training for about 300 staff in the p.u.c. to talk about the important of tone at the top for honesty, of how you do business with each other, that your signature means something, and if in fact you don't do right or you don't call out someone else that's doing wrong, that's your responsibility, and there will be consequences. over the years, i've fired

people, i've reprimanded people, and i've issued orders to stop doing people with the city. i think as we talk about these things, we have to be aware that we are -- actually, we have a lot of people that are honest, and we should keep their morale up by commending them and congratulating them. at the same time, if someone is working against us, then you take them out. >> supervisor mar: yeah, thank you for that. i appreciate that -- yeah, your past history on implementing controls and oversight practices but also your point about the need to support

and -- and the -- you know, the vast majority of our -- and pretty much almost all of our civil servants that are doing their work at ethical and high standards, so thank you. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. if there's no further questions, then we will move onto the second appointment, tim paulson. good morning, tim. >> thank you very much, supervisor ronen, my supervisor, as well as supervisor mar and stefani. so should i follow the same lead as -- >> chair ronen: you got it? >> -- as the previous candidate and just say a few comments about what is happening today? so as you know, i have been appointed by the mayor, and it is now in front of rules, and i just am looking for your approval because as you, you

know, approved me the first time, i ran around to come into this job because i went into a little bit kicking and screaming, i guess is what i tried to say because i've advocated in front of commissions but never sat on them. when people recruited me to come and sit on the public utilities commission, i accepted it, and i took it seriously. i have to tell you, i have learned more about water and power and sewer systems and public power and pg&e and environmental issues than i ever thought i was going to learn, and i've taken it -- i just want you to know, i've taken it very seriously. i've asked questions, i've engaged the staff -- and by the way, there are some incredibly talented professionals in the six different departments of the area.

every time i ask a question, there's a powerpoint -- it's not like they made it up for me, they're actually prepared for a commissioner to be fully briefed. as i continue to go into public service, i'm going to continue to take it seriously. all three of the different agencies and the six departments have been great. as you know, i've worked in the labor movement on behalf of working men and women for the past 25-plus years. that's been my job, and that's been my passion, and that's what drives me is the workers who make this city work, and the workers in both the public and private sector to move forward. so i'm going to continue to, you know, that is my advocacy in my day job, but in my life, i'd like to be able to bring that piece also to the -- to the commission as i continue. i do want to let you know something that i haven't put in, and i think all of you know

this in general, but, you know, i do come from the construction industry. you know, i have -- you know, i've been -- you know, i've run jobs back in the day, you know? i was a construction worker, you know, that ran as a foreman and whatever, you know, i ran many jobs. i know what a change order is. i know what a board foot is. in the trades, your college is your apprenticeship program where you spend four or five years of your life, and you don't have to pay money to go to a college, you actually get paid to learn your trade, and you can go to school at night or on the weekends or whatever else it is. i was an apprenticeship coordinator, also, for a few years. when i was also at the labor council and the building trades

council, i worked on a lot of these project labor agreements. when we sit down with developers, public or private sector, it's all about money, and that's where we fight to make sure we get the best bang for the buck. and as i think i said in the first press release when you guys first approved me, and the mayor nominated me, you know, the rate payers are the first priority. all the other issues are -- because this is an important and complex commission, and a major part of the structure of our city, that we have a lot of issues to deal with that. so, you know, i don't know if i should just stop right there. i really care about finance when it comes to things. during the downturn we had in 2007, when everything just fell to crap, and wall street kept putting money into work and housing and everything else, i

actually had the silly idea of going with lennar and ed lee to china because they wouldn't invest in our city. it actually was a lot of union funds and trust funded that started putting money in the stuff. i was one of the teams that was invited to go, of all places, to main land china to fine some money. but i hope that these comments let you know that i'm honored to be on this commission, and i really want your support to be able to continue to do this work, and more than willing, gang, to take any questions that you might have, so thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. i keep calling you tim. i should be calling you mr. paulson or commissioner

paulson, but i've known you so long, it's hard. i just want to thank you for taking on this new role that is hard for you because you're so used to being on the other side of the podium. but i appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity, and i'm excited that the mayor that's chosen to support you. do you have any questions? do any colleagues have any questions? commission . >> supervisor stefani: i don't have any questions. mr. paulson, he's been a great member of the commission since last year. you will continue to do a great job in your first full

four-year term with this appointment. you've done so much work for not only the p.u.c. but the labor community, and i have nothing but positive experiences and nothing but the greatest faith in your ability to really do the work necessary and advise the p.u.c., based on your experience, and i just -- i can't sing your praises enough. so again, another great nomination that is so easy to support, thanks. >> commissioner, i'm honored, thank you. and chair ronen, you just segued so fast. thank you for this. >> supervisor mar: yeah, i'll just add -- thank you, chair ronen. i'll just add to this, thank you, commissioner paulson or tim, for your decades of work supporting people in this city in the labor movement, and now for your service on the p.u.c. i just have the same

question -- i would ask you the same question that i asked of mr. harrington, what's your response to the investigation and now the prosecution that's been playing out in our city around misconduct, fraud, and corruption by city officials that has now expanded to -- at least the investigation looking into the p.u.c. since july, and how does that relate to the important oversight role of the p.u.c. and for you as a p.u.c. commissioner? >> well, you know, i've been very briefly briefed by the city attorney, that this was an expansion. i think what i'm going to say is former director harrington said, that all of us in the

labor movement, whether we're in government or any part of public life is going to be incredibly diligent to make sure that somebody, you know, that is cheating or taking public dollars or whatever else is going to be exposed, so, you know, as part of the oversight committee, we will -- you know, i'm going to take this very seriously. i don't know of anything, but somebody might or somebody might not. we know the most high profile pieces that have come out of this investigation, but i'm going to take the oversight very seriously, but to be honest, i haven't seen anything. it's in the grand jury's hands right now, so, you know, but obviously, i'm curious as to if anything comes through. so i will be diligent. i don't know if that's the best way to put it, but just like all of you as supervisors. we hope that this department is

as clean as i've seen it, but if there's something there, you know, we'll keep our -- i will keep my ears wide open. >> supervisor mar: thank you for that, tim, and yeah, i think right now that it's really important for all of us, like the -- on the board of supervisors and members of important commissions like the p.u.c. to really focus on our oversight role and really to restore confidence and faith in our city department and critical departments like the p.u.c., so i appreciate that. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. we will know open this item up for public comment. any member of the public who wishes to speak on these two appointments, you'll have two minutes to do so.

>> chair ronen: vic tore, you're on mute. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-854-9547, then press pound, and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may enter your public comment. mr. qao, do we have any speaker for public comment. >> operator: yes, we have one caller. >> hello.

my name is larry mazzola, director of plumbers union 32. i'm here to support tim, to reappointment him on the p.u.c. he has a long history of representing workers in san francisco and well thought of in the city. he's well respected in our industry, done a great job on the commission since he's been on board, and it's very important to have labor on these commissions to have a invoice with the important decisions that are made on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. so i urge you, on behalf of the building trades, to reappoint tim paulson, and i appreciate your time today. >> clerk: thank you. mr. qao, do we have any additional callers?

>> operator: madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: then public comment is closed. i wanted to say how excited i am about both of these appointments. i think they're terrific candidates at this time, and i'm happy to support them. i do want to mention to the mayor and staff since there is one appointment coming up, it would be great to see some additional diversity to this p.u.c. it's such an important commission in our city, and we want to make sure that people from different backgrounds and perspectives are able to have this power and voice on the commission, so that's the one request that i have of the mayor, but it's hard to deny how wonderful, qualified, and committed these two appointments are, and so i'm happily going to be supporting

them today and will make a motion to move forward with positive recommendations both ed harrington to the -- i've got to get out my notes here -- to fill seat one, and tim paulson -- to move that forward with a positive recommendation to fill seat three. can we please have a roll call vote. >> clerk: madam chair, may we amend the motions to delete the wor wor words rejecting on both motions? >> chair ronen: yes. one day, i'm going to get this motion right. victor, thank you. >> clerk: so on the motion to approve and recommend, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes to

amend and recommend the motions for the appointment of ed harrington and tim paulson. >> congratulations on your appointments, and thank you, thank you, thank you for your willingness to serve the city and county in this way. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, can you please read item number three? [agenda item read]. >> clerk: we have six seats and 23 applicants. >> chair ronen: okay. well, thank you so much. it is with great joy that we are hearing this item today. as you all know, i offered,

together with supervisor matt haney and many frontline workers who serve people battling mental health and addiction every single day, and we wrote this law because our system has not been working, and we know that by what we see in the streets every day when you're walking in most neighborhoods, but especially in the mission near general hospital, in the tenderloin, and soma, which is why supervisor haney and i teamed up to create a system that works. mental health sf is the vision of a new and hopefully innovative approach to serving people that need health care for mental illness and

substance use, and hopefully in a few years, we're able to say we have the best system in the country. we were able to fully fund the implementation in the budget that is before us tomorrow. it is a massive systems overhau overhaul, where coordination and collaboration don't exist today although. they're fabulous programs serving the population, they aren't operating as they should, because in san francisco, we have a belief that most mental illnesses and addiction is a curable illness. you can take someone who's very ill and get that person healthy and to a place where they can participate in society as a full and well, you know,

participant. we have so many interest in these seats, and when i look at this list of people, i really already jumped for joy, and unfortunately, we only have six seats, but i just want to remind the candidates today that if you aren't recommended to move forward, that the mayor will also be appointed six seats to the mental health implementation working group, and the city attorney will be appointing one person, so there are other possibilities. and then, of course, once this committee is up and running, all their meetings will be public, and there are many ways to participate in making the vision of mental health sf a success and fully implementing this groundbreaking law. so with that, i wanted to call all of the applicants forward. we have many applicants today,

so if you could keep your comments to three minutes, we would appreciate that. and then, we'll hear from the public, and each member of the public will have two minutes to speak. and then, of course, if either of my colleagues have any questions, feel free to chime in at any point. and with that, i just wanted to ask supervisors mar and stefani if they have any opening remarks or if we should just get into the presentation. presentation? >> supervisor stefani: yes. >> chair ronen: okay. fantastic. so we will do that, and we'll go in order as you're listed on the agenda, and we are starting with amy wong, if she is here with us. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. can you hear me? >> chair ronen: we can hear you. >> yes, hi, good morning. my name is amy wong. i'm member of iftte local 21. i have worked as a mental health treatment specialist for

over 20 years at the san francisco behavioral health center. i am honored to be considered for a seat with the san francisco mental health committee seat. as a shop steward for local 21, i empower co-workers, clients, to standup for their rights to live with dignity. my empowering others with justice and dignity came when i was bullied by others at work. this ad advocacy started with becoming involved in the arts and culture commission through the very ordinance that supervisor hillary ronen and

mat haney -- matt haney crafted and that all of you approved. since the pandemic, our city has been hit with more homelessness, job losses, and services are often inaccessible to these folks. many programs are running independently of each other, lack of oversight, and we need specialized programming and leadership to ensure these services are organized, coordinated, and accessible. and as a mental health professional, i am prepared to use my expertise and decades of experience to help shape policy that will provide effective solutions to the adjusting mental health conditions, substance use disorders and provide strategies to reduce stress accompany homelessness. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so

much, miss wong, and thank you for your decades of work, incredible work. we appreciate you. thank you. next, we're going to hear from lucretia bolin. good morning. >> hi. good morning, chair ronen and vice chair stefani and supervisor mar. i've spent the last three decades working in public health. the majority of this time has been in direct clinical service in the field of addiction, mental health, family practice, sexual assault and sex trafficking. i do this work for a variety of reasons, and some of those reaso reasons are deeply personal. many of the people that i work with rose from the similar

ashes and are shaped by similar adversity. i'm vested in protecting workers' rights and vested in making sure that they can live in the city. i grew up in public housing, lived with my grandmother. we had no black dentists. i was part of the great desegregation movement in the early 70s, and this is when i began to have some visceral sense of difference and access, black and white, rich and poor. following the 1965 debate with william buckley, about the age of five or six of seven, i learned to know the shock and the disaffection and the gap is based only on the color of one's skin. my grandmother never finished high school, and i'm indebted

to to innumerable people. should i be appointed to the work group, i will work to make sure that members have a voice and a seat at the table in the implementation of services that they may be working with. i want to represent the voices that may not have this platform. i have a tremendous amount of privilege because of my education. i want to ensure that elected and appointed servants in body and practice [inaudible] i want to thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. appreciate your hard work, and please stay safe. thank you very much. >> chair ronen: thank you so

much. appreciate all your hard work, as well. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> chair ronen: if there's no questions, then we will move onto shon bufor the record. >> -- buford. how you doing this morning? >> chair ronen: fine. thank you, papa. >> basically, i've been a member of the san francisco fire department for 27 years now. most of my time has been spent working downtown in the bayview or mission district where i was able to see the effects of stress first that has affected our society. during this time, by biological father has also been part of the system for many, many years, suffering for drug addiction, and i've seen how

the type of resources can help people in and out and making sure they get the help they needed. also moving forward in the fire department, i started to see how our public safety providers and service, those who work there are affected by it, and i wanted to make sure that we had thinged in place, not only for to help the citizens, but also to help the providers, whether they're nurses, doctors, sheriff's deputies, firefighters. so i can bring a talent to work with people collaboratively. i have a personal and professional perspective. i'm not afraid of constructive conflict, and also, you know, i wanted to make sure that our city understands the importance of that, as well, and know the stresses that affect our city, what are the challenges that

affect our city, what organizations and resources are available, and if appointed to there, i believe i bring a leadership skill that will help bring everyone together on all sides and make sure that the city is healthy from all perspectives. from that, i'll ask that you nominate me to this seat, and i thank you sincerely. >> chair ronen: thank you. we appreciate your time and service to the city, and we thank you for applying, as well. anyone have any questions? thank you. >> thank you very much. >> chair ronen: next, we'll hear from c.w. johnson. are you here with us today, c.w. johnson? okay. we will come back to it just in case he joins us later.

next, we'll hear from darnell boyd. is darnell boyd with us today? okay. we will come back to mr. boyd in case he joins us a little later. next, we have john smither. is mr. smither with us? okay. we will come back, as well. next, we have liza murawski.

>> good morning, supervisors. thi it is my honor to be among such committed applicants, and i share in your enthusiasm to finally implement mental health san francisco. i have 16 years experience of living with mental health and suffering from addiction and substance abuse. i am a state certified drug and alcohol counselor and educator. i'm applying for stage three, which is for an individual suffering from a dual diagnosis. my life experience spans from nob hill to the corner of turk and hyde. in november of 2019, i had the privilege to do my presentation on a blueprint to wellness and recovery with the mental health

association international conference. this outline, this blueprint outlines the needs and mimics the needs for the mental health san francisco implementation group. i'm currently a member of the tenderloin's people congress and also serve as a health justice leader. i hope you've had time to review my credentials as well as my history. i look forward to working in service and collaboration to create a mental health system that works for our diverse culture and systemic needs of our community. thank you for your consideration, and if you have any questions, feel free to address me with them. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much for applying. is there any questions for my murawski?

thank you so much for applying for the seat. next, we will hear from peter thomas murray. >> great. can you see me and everything? >> chair ronen: yes. we can't see you, but we can hear you perfectly. >> okay. any way, my name is peter murphy, and i appreciate this opportunity to speak with you this morning. i mean, i think mental health sf is a wonderful project, and i'm really glad that it's getting close to fruition. i'm with the mental health association of san francisco, and i would say that i -- well, i identify as an alcoholic and an addict. i've been clean and sober for around 25 years, through 12-step recovery, but i'm also very familiar with the principles of harm reduction and the -- the value of that.

i'm not somebody that's going to try to, you know, i don't know, foist a 12-step recovery on somebody that's not ready or not interested in it, and i also identify with mental health challenges. i'd say for my whole life -- i'm in my early 60s now, and it's taken me that long to realize how my mental health and substance issues have impacted my life. i got clean and sober, didn't really address my mental health issues very well, so even though i was clean and sober, i would continue to still have issues and problems. and it's only in the last, say, six, seven, or eight years that i've found mental health recovery that's been consistent. i believe in peer recovery, and the idea that -- a 12-step recovery to me is about one alcoholic or an addict helping

another. mental health recovery or peer recovery is one addict or alcoholic providing a model of help for another. i think the idea of having universal access to mental health care is so important, and that a lot of our services now exist -- i've -- you know, i've heard the expression exist in silos, and i think that's true. i think we need to have a comprehensive service so we can best address how to serve our community. i look forward to it, and yeah, if there's any questions at this time, i'm happy to entertain them, and i thank you for the opportunity, supervisors ronen, stefani, and mar. thank you so much. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. we really, really appreciate everything you had to say, and

you applying to this position. is there any questions for mr. murphy? nope? thanks. thanks again for being here. >> clerk: mr. murphy, can i ask that you turnoff your camera, as it's been on during most of the meeting. >> oh, sorry. >> chair ronen: no problem. next, we'll hear from phyllis jones. >> hi, he have beeverybody. i just want to say thank you for this opportunity, and i'm really filled with gratitude, and it really helps the work that i'm doing to be in a position to be able to give back. so for my personal experience, i am a young person of color. i just recently aged out of the t.a.y. system. i identify as african american

and latinx. i spent my youth in and out of jail, mental health treatment facilities, and addiction facilities. i am formerly an i.v. drug user, and i currently have five years of sobriety, so i directly relate to the populations that we will be trying to make an impact with in this position, and in the last recent years, i have overcome those things myself, and i hope to bring that perspective to this position. in my professional life, i have become rather successful. i am a student at san francisco state studying in the social work program. i also am a willie brown fellow, interning with h.s.h. my current role, i am a case

manager for jail services, working with populations that are affected by drug abuse, have co-occurring disorders, homelessness, and are trying to navigate the criminal justice system. before this role, i worked for ucsf doing very similar work. i worked at a drop in center at 850 bryant, and i once again worked with those populations. so personally, for me, i have dedicated my life and the greater part of my 20s so far to apply what i have learned and make an impact on people who are like me and going through similar situations. i hope that young people can see some of them in me, and it gives them hope and inspiration

to per severe over what they are -- persevere over what they are going through. as a person of color and someone who experienced what i did early in my life, i offer a unique perspective and needed perspective to this position. i just want to thank you. all of the applicants have been amazing thus far, so i'm glad that we have some really good choices, whether it's me or someone else, to make choices in san francisco and all the communities that have been looked over. thank you so much. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. you all are creating an impossible choice right now, but thank you for applying with your wealth of experience and understanding. any questions? if not, thank you so much for much here and for applying for the seat. we really appreciate you. >> thank you, guys.

>> chair ronen: next, we will hear from charles ryan. charles ryan? not here, and i will give him another chance at the end. and next, we'll hear from kara chen. >> good morning, supervisors. >> chair ronen: good morning. >> my name is kara chen. >> chair ronen: hello. >> i am a deputy public defender. i've been working as a public defender for 30 years, and i am currently the managing important for the san francisco mental health unit. it's an honor to advocate for miself-amongst the group -- myself amongst the group, and i think all of the applicants are

so impressive. i serve as a member on the san francisco mental health board, now it's known as san francisco behavioral health commission from 2012 to 2017, and from 2015 and 2017, i was the chair for the san francisco mental health board. and also, i -- i serve on the jail -- reenvision jail replacement work group, and i also serve on the a.o.t., assisted outpatient treatment program on the implementation group. and currently, i am also working -- serve on the san francisco sfpd crisis intervention work group with the community provider. and also, i cochair a work group from my -- that's work related, which is transitioning clients in jail, in custody, and inpatient from the acute

facility or in jail into treatment. and i think, based on my work, i realize that -- the importance of participating in mental health sf in order to make sure that services and availability of services to be delivered to our clients and consumers in a dignified way, and i think that my knowledge base and my problem-solving skills will be -- enable me to serve the client population in a -- in an effective way. so i thank you for your consideration, and -- and i think this is a great opportunity to participate because i think if sf -- san francisco, if we implement it in a way that is effective, i think we could be the model for the rest of the nation.

so thank you very much for your time. >> chair ronen: thank you so much, miss chien. i just want to take a moment to thank you for all that you do. you are such an expert in the field in so many ways. just feel so grateful for all of your works. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: let's see...who is next? kate franza. she could not be present, but she sent an e-mail, so thank you so much. steve fields, are you here with us today? [inaudible] >> chair ronen: we can't hear you, steve. are you on mute? >> not anymore, i hope. >> chair ronen: nope, now we can hear you. >> good morning, supervisors. it's an opportunity to say a large thank you, supervisor ronen, for being a part of the leadership on getting this

essential reform moving right at a time when it's needed most, and the board of supervisors that supported the measure by 100%. it's -- this is an opportunity that working with the mayor's office and the board may not come around again, and so i'm excited about this. [please stand by]

>> what's been exciting in any career to get a chance to do programs that are based on the kinds of principles that i believe have to be core to the mental health if it's going to be successful. i think the biggest challenge facing all behavioral health systems is the problem over recidivism. we have never seriously confronted that we have a cycling population of individuals who going into acute care, coming back to a community where there isn't adequate treatment, follow through and a dedication to recovery being a

possible outcome if we build a continuum of care in the community. we're reliant inpatient. we have not made the deal we need to make to actually commit to a community-based system of care. no jurisdiction has try to put together this effort on a policy level. no other jurisdiction has the wealth of agencies and services and providers that we have. if we just find a way to work together with a common vision of our outcome, we can attack recidivism and seriously change the course of what it means to a young person today who comes into an emergency room with a dual diagnosis problem that they need to have treated. i want to be in this from the

beginning because i've been in it from the beginning. i bring to this group an experience of what it takes to stand up a program. what it takes to find the funding for a program, to leverage other resources. i have worked in the system of care my whole career and my dedication is to try to find ways to avoid the mistakest -- mistakes we made for decades to leverage the politics and the strategy and the resources for developing full articulated community treatment system of care, from the inside. that's what i'm excited about -- working with the people i heard so far this morning -- this is really an opportunity. i don't want to miss it. i want to be in with this group working on solutions. thank you. any questions, i'd be happy to

answer. >> chair ronen: i want to thank you so much. >> i started my 53rd year. >> chair ronen: that's incredible. thank you so much. very much appreciate you. i don't think there's any question. but thanks so much for being here today and for applying. really appreciate it. >> thank you supervisors. >> chair ronen: i understand that vitka eisen withdrew her application. we'll skip over her. next we'll hear from monique lesarre. >> can you hear me? >> chair ronen: yes. we can hear you. good morning. >> thank you all so much.

i'm going to read my comments because there's so much that i can respond to. good morning supervisors ronen, mar and stefani. i'm deeply grateful to be part of this conversation today. it is my honor to apply for the seat 6, 7 and 8. i had sleepless nights dealing with behavioral health department in san francisco, specifically around -- [indiscernible]. my frustration is lack of community that has been shown. i'm excited to work as a team to engage mental health, substance and the community. as a long-term african-american resident of san francisco i worked on equity for all people. i'm the daughter of two parents that were impacted by mental health, ptsd, depression, anxiety and substance abuse,

addiction, trauma, violence. as a survivor myself of trauma, i have dedicated my life to working to understand what my parents and family and went through and understand how to support and provide safety to people of healing. i work everyday to provide more resources for our community. i have my doctorate and masters degree in clinical psychology. my specific focus is on african-american mental health and wellness, especially intergenerational trauma and healing. in addition to my main job, where our mission is to eliminate health in black and marginalized communities.

i worked as a clinician with moms and children and day treatment and psychological services. i worked as a director of children youth and family services and as a mental health services director at california mental studies. i continue to be a tireless advocate in the san francisco and bay area that actually serves the community effectively with chair and excellence. my engagement has been a volunteer on projects for the community as a volunteer-led --

[indiscernible] i volunteer regularly mentoring healings for communities. i thank you for your time and consideration. i agree with mr. jones, there's been amazing applicants. we must find a way to address recidivism. i really want to be part of the solution. thank you so much and if you have any questions, i'm here. otherwise, thank you, amazing applicant and thank you so much. >> chair ronen: thank you so much for all your inspiration. thank you for being here and applying. i don't think there's any questions. next we will hear from aggie

quinn. aggie quinn is not here. i will call one more time to make sure. next we will hear from andrea salinas. >> good morning madam chair and supervisors. i will be honored to serve on seat 7. i'm a clinical social worker.

we are the largest contract partner with d.p.h. providing services to 1200 individuals across our program. our clients has severe mental illness, many use substance, have complicated medical needs and are diverse. we are also the mental health provider with program dedicated to serving the mentally ill. we also provide substance abuse treatment through our staff program. up until the pandemic, we had a lively social opening monday through friday. i serve as the supervisor to our lgbtq focus team and oldest program, community focused case management.

we are organized and culturally focused team including our african-american focused team and latinx and korean focused team. we meet our clients where they are at honoring their particular experiences. i have been working as a case manager in san francisco for over 20 years. i always worked predominantly person of color. over the years i developed expertise working with latino population. i'm aware of the unique needs -- [indiscernible]

thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much for all your work and applying for the seat. really appreciate it. i don't believe there's any questions. now asking for kathleen johnson-silk. is she present? >> good morning. thank you, madam chair and supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to participate today amongst such an incredible group of applicants. my name is kathleen johnson-silk. i was born and raised in san francisco. i'm a family therapist with focused on trauma and care. i'm applying for seat 7. i worked for 17 years with people in criminal system in diverse capacity. serving the behavioral health safety net and community

organizing and prison rights litigation. i currently oversee 450 treatment beds in san francisco and up until march, had the distinguished honor of spearheading the implementation of the meth task force recommended drug sobering center in district 6. i see mental health sf has a tremendous opportunity to improve the system. one major problem is that the public behavioral health treatment can perpetuate trauma and depression of the criminal system. this can happen without intention or awareness but it does happen as treatment can emulate and sustain damaging elements of the criminal system. i oversee treatment and supportive housing for people coming hope -- home after serving life sentences. things like the behavioral surveillance, stigmatizing

terminology can trigger lack of control, reinforced dependence and loss of identity which recalls the ways of feeling and being they experienced. treatment is all too often another part of the poverty and incarceration cycle. mental health sf is an opportunity to address the systematic fault. i see an obligation to overhaul healthcare system to be less racist. as we move into a future where we are able to envision ways in which police departments can and should be defunded, how jail and prisons can quickly reduce populations instead continuing to overcrowd to deadly capacities where black lives matter truly mean something, sf can show the rest of the world how we do it. thank you.

>> chair ronen: thanks for applying. next we will hear from veronica forbes. >> good morning. >> chair ronen: we can't hear you. we still can't hear you. >> can you hear me? >> chair ronen: now we can. >> hi, i'm veronica forbes applying for seat 7. as formally homeless queer with mentally ill incarcerated father, i work to reduce recidivism, prioritize public safety and enhance victim protection, provide trauma services and efficiently use san francisco's resources to divest from incarceration and depression. as lead medical social worker from kaiser transition team i know that funding program according to the positive outcomes pays for itself in

fiscal savings by reducing high medical spending. i collaborated with jail psychiatric services and jail aftercare services as behavioral health where rereduce the use of criminal justice and mental health services with a net benefit by stabilizing patients. my goal is to further increase saving by cutting unnecessary jail time and fund more case managers. my other goal is to extend our county's practice of neighborhood courts, restorative justice and use of social workers sentencing planners to defund our criminal justice system especially in our schools. juvenile criminality being the highest -- biggest predictor of adult criminality and males ages 15 to 24 having highest rates of arrest, it's why i created a pilot program for ucsf citywide

focus. as a behavioral health specialist and the first program manager of navigation center, i know that federally funded employment, job training reentry programs, mental health team and protecting undocumented individual who report crimes can successfully reform our criminal justice system. i've also volunteered on campaign for the mental health sf to create a national model for universal mental health care. it is for all these reasons that thank supervisors, ronen, stefani and mar and colleagues for their time. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. this is so difficult. you all are so amazing. thank you very much for all your work and advocacy.

next, we will hear from aaron buchbinder. are you here? we will hear from oi-yee wong. ms. wong available? then last but not least, sara shortt. are you here?

there you are. good morning. >> good morning. i'm just super excited about mental health sf. i'm passionate about being involved in the implementation. i'll tell you why. i think it was probably when i graduated with my masters in social work about 20 years ago when i first started to understand some of the challenges with our mental healthcare system. i knew a bit about it before that. i do have an uncle who's chronically mentally ill. family has been working to get decent care for decades -- understood firsthand all the barriers and the challenges and the obstacles.

but also how important it was for him to get decent care. care that emphasized things like harm restructure, care that was sensitive -- coordinated, compassionate. that's what we're talking about with mental health sf. i'm also excited about it because as a member of the treatment on demand coalition, we've been working on the issue of reform for behavioral health services for a few years now. it just so happen we were starting to -- talk to members at city hall about what can be done about this type of reform that was needed. it coincided with the ideas with mental health sf and we thought, this is wonderful and we jumped in and got involved with working with supervisor haney's use supervisor ronen office and department of public health to

actually craft something. having involved crafting the legislation and help pass the legislation, i have a real investment in making sure that it works effectively. my other reasons are, i spent three years in skid row in los angeles. i ran a homeless outreach program there. we had multidisciplinary teams. the teams included nurses and outreach workers, substance abuse counselors. it included mental health clinicians. that was a big part of the program. i learned so much about the role that mental healthcare on the streets that will meet people where they are and will particularly work to integrate the issues of homelessness and mental healthcare -- how that played out, again some of the flaws and some of the amazing benefits that occur when people are approached not just by an outreach worker but someone

who's trained clinicians and who can correct them to mental health services. that's where i started to see benefits, the way that housing is a mental health intervention. the way that housing intersects with mental health and behavioral health needs, in a way that's almost miraculous sometimes. after working on skid row, i started here in san francisco working at community housing partnership. we're a supportive housing provider. i'm applying for seat 11 which is for supportive housing provider. that's when i continue to see that supportive housing makes all the difference in the world. it's not a silver bullet. but, when you can get people who are mentally ill or dealing with substance abuse issues off the streets and into good permanent

supportive housing where they have the services on sight and they have the connection, the case managers and clinical support, mental health issues are absolutely also being treated through that method. it's one of the most effective methods so that people with get the stability they need to then be able to be successful in treatment. community housing partnership, we have 17 buildings across the city we primarily provide houses to homeless folks. one of our main goals is to provide that type of stability so people can work on substance abuse and mental health issues and link them to the services they need and provide housing. i will definitely bring that

housing perspective and the intersection and will have an eye out for that. other thing i can say, i've been on a lot of working boards and commissions within the city. that's on my resume. i'm member of the conservatorship working group. it's being now increased, expanded due to changes in the law. just would like to say that everyone who has spoken today, seems so amazing and has great experience. i'm so ready to roll up my sleeve and put my qualification and experience and expertise into making a great program. i know we can do it. we talked a lot about various ideas people have, we've looked

at national models. so many people come up with super resourceful ideas, based on direct experience, working in the system. that's what we need to make this program work. we have such dedicated supervisors, leaderships at the helm, supervisor as supervisor ronen and haney. i know that the department of public health is fully on board. we had enough considerations to- conversations to know they are ready to do this. this is an opportune time that we can bring all these amazing people together to work from different perspectives to make an new day in san francisco. a new day with people with mental health issues and substance abuse issues will get

treated with parity and will bring equity to the system rather than this whole long history we've had of segregation mental health and physical health. that's not the way of the world anymore. it's about integration and this program will do that. i'm just grateful for the opportunity to apply. i'm grateful that this process is moving forward. i'm excited to see what comes out of it. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. appreciate you and all your work. now we're going to give one more chance for the people who weren't present the first time around -- i'll call all the names one more time. if you present, let us know. aggie quinn, cw johnson, darnell

boyd, john smither, charles ryan, aaron buchbinder, oi-yee wong. any of those applicants show up? okay. seeing none. mr. clerk, hoping you can open up for public comment and if you'll excuse me for one minute, i will run to the restroom. supervisor stefani can take the chair. i will be right back. thank you. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so,

please dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait for the system to indicate that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. do we have any speakers at this time? >> yes, there are two callers in the queue. >> hi members of the rules committee. i hope you pass supervisor ronen as soon as she gets back from the restroom. i really support sara shortt, i have all the confidence in world that you will appoint her. i also want to see liza muraws murawski. she's my neighbor and i worked with her on issues.

housing is a component to mental health. we need someone not only experience with mental health -- [indiscernible].

thank you very much. i yield my time. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> my name is joe wilson. i'm executive director of hospitality. i got accused by the technology. i was trying to testify in support of darnell boyd for seat 3. will acknowledge members of the committee and especially supervisor ronen for her leadership on this important issue to really help redesign the city's mental health system. long overdue. darnell boyd, i believe, is an

accomplished both consumer, advocate and activist in the community for many years. worked at power for a number of years. he's been an activist and advocate to the coalition of homelessness. he's a veteran. he is formall formally homeless. former member of hospitality and board of directors. he has commitment to lifting up lived experiences in the community and with the struggle of mental health issues, i think reflects the need for us to

recognize how important it is and benefit of viewing those who lived experience as assets, not liabilities. we need to invest in the least restrictive interventions possible. that often stimulates the unlimited possibilities of the individual's own potential. that has collective benefits for us all. i want to acknowledge incredible depth and breadth of experience -- >> clerk: thank you. speaker time has expired. do we have any additional

speakers? >> hi there. my name is eric. i'm speaking on behalf of philip jones for seat 3. i'm the mentoring and peer support program coordinator with jail behavioral health and reentry services. philip is a mentor working with our program. we work with most of the treatment court, behavioral health court, misdemeanor behavioral health court drug court, veteran's court and mental health diversion. i want to speak up on behalf of philip. although, i think, he did really good job presenting. all of you did. philip had become a substance users when he was younger. he became homeless. he's bipolar as he had said.

he's amazing with working with people really natural using motivations and interviewing. he joins with people in jail and guides them through the process of making it through the criminal justice system showing them how they can go on living accessing services and pursuing a dream of sobriety and stability to also reduce recidivism. he's a role model doing work at the cast, organizing the sort of entire lobby. he's respected in every court by the judges, the lawyers -- all the social workers, case managers in the community as well as here in the jail. he's able to really inspire people to manage their own mental health issues.

i just love to see philip fly, especially with him going to school, getting scholarships. he's tireless. that's about it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you for letting me speak with you. i'm calling today to speak in support of liza murawski.

i understand the dedication, work ethic and the breath and depth knowledge she brings. i think they would make really invaluable memories on the implementation committee. i want to say to supervisor ronen, thank you so much for bringing this legislation forward. it's an amazing opportunity for san francisco and for our community, most importantly for our residents who are in such dire need of reliable services. thank yru so much again, thank you for your time. >> clerk: next caller.

>> it's sara shortt again. i wanted to comment on some of the folks that have applied who i think would be -- if i am appointed, great colleagues. the working group with me. these are people that i worked personally particularly with the treatment on demand coalition work that we've done. i would say that amy wong is remarkable and would be a great at representing the interest of labor and that's an important seat that the working group does have. andrea salinas is clinical social worker who really knows the ins and outs of the system.

kara ka wah chien has such good criminal justice background. steve fields he's been in the game a long time. really knows about the larger system. i don't think i heard anyone else who really knows that kind of the breadth of knowledge around department of public health functions, behavioral health services and the landscape the community mental health program. finally, philip jones, i haven't worked with him. he struck me as having a very important viewpoint to bring to the table around particularly youth but also as a user of services, would be extremely

important to have his reflection and advising -- it does seem like he's been in different parts of the system. he has that up-close knowledge. those are people that i wanted to reinforce, struck me as really important beneficial people to the body who would really be able to talk from -- >> clerk: speaker time has expired. do we have additional speakers? >> that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. public comment is closed. colleagues, did you have any comments or questions? >> supervisor stefani: thank you chair ronen. just a few comments. first of all, thanks to your leadership and supervisor haney for the overhaul and the focus

mental health in san francisco. i'm so glad that we all came to a consensus and moving forward. obviously we know this is something we struggle with. there's so many qualified applicants. i know three, shawn, sara and steve -- there's a treatment home in district 2 that i toured with steve. one thing that stood out to me, chair ronen and supervisor mar, i thought about the seats that -- sara shortt said something about working with different perspectives. i'm looking at seat 6 about substance abuse, treatment providers and expertise of mental health treatment and harm reduction. also in seat 3, someone who identifies as having both mental health condition and substance

abuse condition. for me, i think it's so important to look at all aspects of recovery and obviously harm reduction is one. i think fate-based programs has to be considered. i think a lot of people have the feeling that lot of these abstinence based program prograe somehow religious or something. i think that's a myth in needs to be dispelled. i was impressed by everybody. what stands out to me is people in recovery. people that have dealt with that beast of addiction in hair -- their head. they know what it's like to overcome that. i think it's really hard for people that don't understand what it's like for people. it's not a will power thing.

i just want to make sure the voices of recovery are heard. not at the expense of harm reduction because we know that is important too. i think peter thomas murphy touched on it. he bravely told us about his recovery and he's sober and he participates in 12 step program. he also sees the value of harm reduction. that one on one thing, alcohol to alcohol it's that peer thing. that has to be a component of this working group. it has to be something that's respected. again, not at the expense of harm reduction. there are people in this world with substance abuse disorder that cannot take their drug of choice. that has to be respected. i think so many times it isn't. it's not to say that people who engage in an abstinence based

program, once they do they relapse and it's a huge part of sobriety and it's a huge part of substance abuse disorder. lot of people relapse and they start up again and try in abstinence based program. there's nothing wrong with that. i think it's important that we have voices of also not only harm reduction, not only treatment providers but people who have that thing inside their head and everyday wake up in the morning and make a decision whether it's conscious or not, to not take their drugs. to not take that drink. to know what it's like to pay that forward to somebody else. i think it has to be considered

and we would benefit someone on the working group that really understands not only abstinence based programs but also knowing that's an attraction rather than promotion idea, that they are able to talk about in a way that's personal and helpful to the working group in our situation that we're facing. the working group and everybody on it would benefit greatly. one last thing about shawn buford, i worked with him for so long. i know he applied for seat one. also the thing we've been talking about lately is looking to our fire department or others to take the emergency calls th t was long assigned to police

department, how we want to steer away from that. how we know em6 can help us do that in the future. i think shon is uniquely qualified to lend his voice to that part of the conversation. it's crucial to the conversation having other people respond to mental health responses in a way that's effective. everyone i can say is so qualified. for me, i would like to recommend shon buford for seat one and make that motion. i don't know how everybody feels. i think that for me sticks out. thank you to all those that came out today and applied. like chair ronen said, it's so hard. i want to thank those who shared their recovery with us. it's a brave thing to do. there's a lot of stigma around people that are in recovery and people who suffer from substance

abuse disorder. i hope one day that people realize that recovering alcoholicses those with drug addiction are afflictioned with a disease like somebody with diabetes. it is a disease and there are ways to treat it and we have to look at all way. supervisor ronen, i want to thank you for your leadership and i'm looking forward to this moving forward. thanks. >> chair ronen: supervisor mar, did you have any comments? >> supervisor mar: thank you chair ronen for the incredible leadership that you and supervisor haney have brought to the mental health sf campaign and working with all the community and labor stakeholders and mayor breed and d.p.h. on getting up to this point. it's such an exciting moment for our city to think that we can --

we're going to be moving ahead with such visionary and transformative approach to addressing such huge challenge for our city. thanks to all of the 23 applicas for the mental health sf working group. i'm impressed and blown away by all of the work that you all are doing in all of your different ways. this is an extremely difficult decision to make to figure out who we as a board will appoint to the six seats. it's got to know that the mayor, there's additional seats that the mayor will appoint to. i appreciate supervisor stefani's comments and remarks.

i would defer to you chair ronen since you been the most intensively working on this. >> chair ronen: thank you. i think for the first time on this board in the seat, i would appoint every single person who spoke today. it was a remarkable set of applicants. from the bottom of the heart, i'm saying that in a genuine way, there's not one of you that i would not appoint to this if we could appoint every single one of you. there is really good news. the mayor and the city attorney have some additional appointments. particularly luceretia bolin.

again, this is such -- i would make a motion to move forward and i want to speak to seat 1. i would actually move forward amy wong for seat 1. the reason for that is not because shon buford wouldn't be amazing. if this goes forward, i'm extremely hopeful that the mayor will consider appointing him to the seat that he's qualified

for. amy wong works very close with us while we were working to create mental health sf. she has such an incredible experience, particularly with the boarding care side of long-term placement for mental health. such a particular set of experience and knowledge that wouldn't otherwise be represented on the board. together with her labor, she's a very active member and runs the only city care facility that we have. those are the reasons i would put forward amy wong name with some knowledge that i think we could all be really supportive

of mr. buford with his appointment and hope that we get both of them appointed on this board. for seat 3, i would put forward philip jones. i never worked with mr. jones. you blew me away in your presentation today. hearing from some of the public commenters about you, and your particular personal experience mixed with your professional experience, it's so unique. if you are appointed, i will be so looking forward to getting to know you better and working with you to implement mental health sf and to hear your voice on this committee. to seat 6 with a residency waiver, i would put forward steve fields. who has 52 years of experience.

it's hard to beat. especially given his role he plays on the state level in terms of mental health reform and working groups. i think he can bring that statewide and larger knowledge of the system here locally and combine those so they work together. so many of our dollars that we spend on mental healthcare and substance use care comes from state. having that advocate and that's so knowledgeable and how to access those dollars is so important. to seat 7, i would put forward, this is an extremely hard choice. we have so many qualified applicants. i would put forward andrea salinas to seat city.

citywide case management plays such an important role in our system of care in san francisco. i believe they, case manage close to 70% of the cases that we have here in san francisco and because of that unique role that they play and then salinas' incredible 20 years of experience on the front lines, providing case management and especially with those that are touched by the criminal justice system. we know are so many individuals that are living with mental illness and substance abuse. she is the right person for this seat at this time. for seat 8 i would put forward

dr. monique lesarre. we are in a moment in our city's history where we are paying special attention and grappling with failing the black community and african-american community in ways that we're finally making up for in sort of radical and new ways. i think we're all very proud of that work. dr. lesarre is the leader this that work. we know that the african-american community is disproportionately impacted. that's because of trauma inflicted by this country on this community in a very particular way. her experience and voice on this implementation working group, i believe is essential. last but not least, i would

recommend sara short shortf of r seat 11. her knowledge of permanent supportive housing intersect with wellness and stability for those living with mental illness and substance use is unique. that's the possible possible cht i would recommend. knowing that we have the opportunity to advocate for many others of you to be seated to the working group by the mayor and the city attorney. then finally, every one of you is over qualified to serve on this working group. not having a vetoin -- seating s

not mean you cannot participate. there will be opportunity for public comment and share your expertise and guidance with this working group. this is a historic moment in the history of san francisco. i do believe with your help, we're going to create the best system in the country. we're going to create a model that we can share and that other cities and counties can replicate throughout the united states. i cannot thank you all enough for your daily work, for your willingness to serve. with that, mr. clerk, i know we have two different motions on seat 1. maybe if we could -- did you want to say something? >> supervisor stefani: you made your motion and obviously, i support shon in that role. i did make the motion. with the mayoral appointment,

hopefully that will work out. i'm willing to respect your appointments that you said. i know that -- i really think that shon will be great. but sam-- >> i appreciate that. are you willing to withdraw your motion? >> yes but with my support still very much on record. >> absolutely. i hope we can work together because i am very hopeful that the mayor sees in shon what you and i see in shon which is someone that should be on this body. i think this might be a moment where we can have it both ways. very much hoping that's the case. i certainly will be working to hopefully see that as a reality.

i know that the mayor has great respect for mr. buford. i have a feeling that we'll be able to see that happen. with that, i really appreciate your willingness to do that supervisor stefani. i share your passion and respect for mr. buford and believe that hopefully we can work together to share that respect with the mayor and these appointments. mr. clerk, did you get my motion on all those seats? >> clerk: i did get it. we have amy wong seat 1, philip jones seat 3. steven fields seat 6, andreas salinas seat 7, monique lesarre

seat 8 and sara shortt seat 11. >> chair ronen: can we have a roll call vote? [roll call vote] the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you so much mr. clerk. again, thank you so much. what an amazing group of candidates and leaders and this work in our community. we appreciate you all. thank you. mr. clerk, please read item number 4. >> clerk: appoint -- it's a motion to appoint supervisor

rafael mandelman, term ending december 1, 2021 to the california state association of counties. do we have any speakers on this matter? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. i'm happy to make a association to -- motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation. please take a roll call vote. [roll call vote] motion passes.

>> chair ronen: thank you so much. please read item number 5. >> clerk: hearing consider appointing one member for investment term to the food security task force. i wanted to mention that ms. monique was accidentally appointmented to the seat last week which is not a vacant seat. we have scheduled this matter to appoint vacant seat 9 which has the same qualifications. i apologize for this error. >> chair ronen: no problem. thank you very much for flagging it for us. we can this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to speak on this matter can dial 415-655-0001. please dial star 3 to lane up to speak. a system pro