public might not think of >> president darrell honda will be presiding officer and he is joined by eduardo santacana, an lazarus, rick swig and tina chang and also brad russy will provide the board of any needed legal advice. at the controls of the board legal clerk, alex long way and i'm julie rosenburg. we'll also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will present before the board this evening. scott sanchez and joseph, acting deputy director of the san francisco department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off our silence all phones so they will not disturbing the proceedings. rules of presentations are, the appellants, each are given seven

minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties, may have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebut the many. time may be limited depending on the calender. four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit or determination. and if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, e-mail board staff at me. denise. >> hi, this is denise i just wanted to congratulate fiona and we looking forward to working with her. >> that's all i wanted to comment on. >> tiffany yu. >> i'm just joining in on the praise to congratulate fiona.

i also want to recognize all of the other work that fiona has done in terms of the dignity funds so this isn't coming out of the blue. you know fiona has been in you are community for a long time so i'm really looking forward to having her also partner, i think, with some of the other presenters we had earlier today to really ensure that everything that the mta is doing and advocating for is disability centered. thank you, fiona. >> thank you. >> she may have had to leave. >> i'll add my congratulations to the mix as well, fiona, i'm looking forward to working together, especially with the

jfk project and hoping that issue gets resolved very soon. thank you so much and congratulations. >> we're going to need everybody's input on jfk. >> ok. >> helen. >> hi, fiona. again, big congratulations and we're so glad you are on the sfmta board. much needed. >> all right. >> we look forward to working with you. >> all right. >> are there any comments or questions from staff? >> i will note that this is debbie kaplan. i will note that nicole had to leave for a 4:00 meeting with

public-health. and i think on behalf of all of the m.o.d. staff, you know, we're just really thrilled that fiona is on the m.t.a. board and is going to compliment the good work. mta accessible group is already a really start partner with m.o.d. on a lot of different issues, some of which you heard today. and we also know there's a lot that remains to be done and we are continuously working not just for accessibility but for helping all the different offices in the city understand the impact of all of the different initiatives that they have potential leon people withh

disabilities. because we usually are effected in ways that are not necessarily anticipated. so, as someone who has lots of direct experience, fiona, this really goes a long way as well as all of the experiences and skills you bring to the table. we're really happy. that is comments from the staff. >> thank you, debbie. do we have any comments? >> i believe we have two people in queue. >> go ahead, caller. >> caller: hi, it's great to have you here fiona, any public

office is always a great thing and i appreciate you taking the time to comment and from the public. as you may already know, and many times to this office and this council and efforts and denial to serve to get on a bus in my while chair and disability access meeting and every year and file a complaint for years. i'm hoping to get and i would love to discuss this and anyone and on how to address this problem and how to get there and it's crowded and therefore they don't sound and i'll say the

buses on time and fixed you routes and they use their and required to be and grievance process with sfada and grievance process and it's a joke and it's not allowed to be a public record and most importantly, which makes them hate us more because i don't feel like it's their fault most of the time, they're on fixed routes that totally destroyed their ability to pick us up. sfmta has fought tooth and nail for any kind of progress that can be made that supports drivers and the union and has demonized and blocked my efforts to improve access on buses. so i'm hoping with you on the

board we can make some steps forward or wheels forward. i'm excited for that opportunity and i also. i support the union and driver education. the union is working on driver education measures and increased training, specifically including people with disabilities and seniors in the training of drivers and having a quiz at the end to make sure they absorbed the information from the training so they know what it's like for us. i look forward to hear from you and i would love your e-mail contact. can you find me at first initial and last name at gmail.com. thank you for your time and congratulations on your appointment. >> thank you for your comments, caller. the next caller.

do we have another one. >> caller: this is bob plant again. so, this is a question for fiona, that i think it's helpful if council members think about fiona, this is regarding the changes to taxi usage capacity for market street that the mta board recently passed on januarr positive vote. we were told that cabs can't be in the center lane because it would slow down muni buses. i've twice asked in e-mails to two separate staff a, how many buses now are there operating on market, b, when the subway opens, how many will there be? i've not gotten any answers despite, as i say, multiple requests to two people. i'm wondering, have you board of directors, been told or have any of you asked, how many buses now and how many in the future? because that allows us to better

understand why mta is saying you can't put cabs in the center lane. otherwise, it's just like we're accepting staff's word with no statistics, no information, no data. all the different statements that we march from city government for years, data driven, data driven, when there ain't no data given out and we asked for it, it raises doubts about whether staff really a, has researched this, b is honest and open with it it's transparent and b, you know, trying to move for some other reason than just saying it would interfere with buses. fiona, have you asked how many buses now? how many in the future will be used in the center lane? thank you. >> thank you for your comment.

thank you for coming and congratulations for your new appointment and we will be excited to work with you in the near future. again, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. have a good one. >> have a good rest of your meeting. >> thank you. with that, i'm going to proceed to item number 9 which is general public comment. that is not in today's agenda but within the jurisdiction of the mdc. are there any comments? >> we have one person in queue in public comment. >> go ahead, caller.

>> caller: hi, my name is zack. i just want to respond to the general public comment so i can talk about other items not on the agenda. i mentioned a number of times accessibility issues with these meetings. they're a lot less accessible during covid even though it's a phone line which is bizarre. it used to be you could call in and talk to a live person and they would help you. you could easily work with the department of technology to have a phone line that can patch through to someone to the secretary. and the excuse is zoom bombing to not give us the ability to have a chat function to ask for help is ridiculous. i hope that accessibility can be improved. i hope that i can do other things with my life than having to write e-mail after e-mail after e-mail to this department. mayor's office on disability,

trying to fix accessibility in a city after a year of covid, accessibility is broken. it's all public meetings and it's really bad. i would really like it if mob can work on it. here in a housing crisis. disable didn't have housing before covid. social security disability pays around $968 a month. there's no housing in the city for disabled people living on that kind of an income. the so-called affordable housing is 20% of ami. which is usually over $20,000 a year in rent. which is more than a disabled person on social security and severity disabled person can make. if you are severely disabled in san francisco you are homeless unless you have a special circumstance with a family member that can take you in. you are going to be homeless. the mayor's office on disability

needs to talk about this at every meeting. it's a crisis in our city. according to the eviction defense collaborative the majority of eviction this is 2016 were disability. we are facing the brunt of the covid pandemic and i'm yet to hear nicole or anyone at this office address the medical triage that is happening with disabled people and covid vaccines, especially disabled people of color. they neglect the is the issue of race and ethnicity and how it effects people dis purport atly, especially during covid and their access to life saving medical treatment, i would love nick coal to give a presentation actually addressing that raise is a com phone attribute of vaccine distribution and medical care. additionally, i would love it if that office would be more fourth coming with information and transparency about what you are doing about the covid pandemic

saying that you are working on getting vaccines to people in their homes and that you have no other update to give other than that is not good enough. we can do better. we need better. we need a website with transparent documents, information, and up-to-date day by day week by week of what is actually happening to protect the lives of the disabled people. >> thank you for your call. are there anymore general comments? >> that was our last public comment. >> thank you. so, right now we're going to correspondence. do we have any? >> there's not been any correspondence directed to the mdc. >> thank you, debbie. are there any comments or announcements at this time?

>> i just want to say thank you very much for this mdc staff. thank you to the staff for services thank you to the captioning and interpreters. thank you for helping us today. so with that, if there's no comments or announcements, and if there's no objections, i'm

going to call this meeting adjourned. >> so moved. >> so we are adjourned at 4:17. the next meeting is going to be on march 19th at 1:00. thank you.

informed >> president darrell honda will be presiding officer and he is joined by eduardo santacana, an lazarus, rick swig and tina chang and also brad russy will provide the board of any needed legal advice. at the controls of the board legal clerk, alex long way and i'm julie rosenburg. we'll also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will present before the board this evening. scott sanchez and joseph, acting deputy director of the san francisco department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turn off

our silence all phones so they will not disturbing the proceedings. rules of presentations are, the appellants, each are given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties, may have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebut the many. time may be limited depending on the calender. four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit or determination. and if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, e-mail board staff at sfgov.org. public access and participation of important to the board and every everyday has been made to replication the in-person process. to enable public participation,

they are broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we'll have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda and where providing captions. go to channel 78. please, note, it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the livestream is found on the home page of our website. public comment can be provide inside two days. one, join the zoom meeting by computer. go to our website and click on the zoom link. and ones again sf gov tv is broadcasting and streaming across the bottom of the screen if you are watching a livestream or broadcast. when you call into block your

number, dial star 67 and then the phone number. listen for your item to be called and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak and you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you will have three minutes. again, our legal clerk will give you a 30 second warning before your time is up. please note there's a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast in live streamed on tv and the internet. it's very important that people calling in reduced or turn off the volume on their tv or computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees meet a disability accommodation, make a request in the chat function to the board's legal clerk or send an e-mail. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now, we will swear in affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak, without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance.

if you testify at any of tonight's proceedings, and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testify will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. if you are participant and you are not speaking, put your zoom speaker on mute. we're moving on to item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calender. is there anyone here for general public comment? i don't see any hands raised. we'll move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> president honda: unless anyone has a comment or a suggestion for the minutes, can i have a motion to accept those? >> we're on item 2. >> president honda: sorry. i gotta head of myself.

>> you are eager to get going. any commissioner comments or questions? so we'll move on to item number 3. commissioners, before you for your consideration are the draft minutes for the february 10th, 2021 meeting. >> i'll ditto what i said, does anyone have a motion. >> i motion to approve. >> is there any public comment on commissioner swig's motion to adopt those minutes? please, raise your hand. seeing there's no public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes, vice president santacana. >> aye. >> commissioner lass russ. laza. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> thank you, the minutes are adopted 5-0. we will now move on to item number 4 and this is joel tomei subject property 172

21st avenue. appealing the issuance on september 16th, 2020 of ralph chapinto demolish the rear deck and stairs and the reduced footprint. the proposed landing and stairs will extent 6'11" from the rear building. the subject property and required to maintain a year yard of approximately 28 feet which is the average depth of the rear building walls of two adjacent buildings. the existing deck and stairs are located within the required rear yard. the proposed landing and stairs would result in a smaller footprint but also would be located in the required rear yard and therefore a rear yard variance is required and the zoning administrator granted the variance. this is case number 2018-007914. they continued this matter to february 17th, 2021 so the determination share the revised with the plans at 178th 21st stt

property and they impact the neighbor's party and the board executive director and the deputy voting administrator can modify as needed if the revised plans are adopted by the board. we will go ahead and hear from the appellant first. mr. joel tomei. you have three minutes, sir. we can't hear you. we heard you before but now we can't. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> i just want to clarification, has chris joined the video? >> the architect? >> yes, he is here. >> ok. basically, i wanted to get a clarification from you and i don't need to go what i went through in january, is that right? otherwise i went ahead and described exactly my position as the appellant and presented that

and chris presented the plan and we were asked to come back after a meeting, possibly meeting with the property owners adjacent of the 178 21st. is that the basic subject, 178 21st? >> that's correct. this is your opportunity to say something about that. >> i was in contact with chris sullivan and i think he is the one that's been pursuing this. he is going to have to explain the status of that. >> ok. >> you are finished? thank you. >> yes, ma'am. >> we can go on to mr. sullivan. >> yes. this is chris sullivan, the architect who is representing the owner at 172 21st avenue. i did reach out, or attempted to reach out to the neighbors at

178 21st avenue. i sent them a fedex package with the latest set of drawings. a letter explaining exactly what we were doing in terms of the rear yard deck and new stair configuration. i sent that january 20th, and following our meeting with the board january 15th and suggested they respond within two weeks of that late. it put the response request february 4th. and i didn't hear anything from them. i also put a package on their doorstep and left it there, rang the bell, and i didn't hear anything from anyone. i did that following the

february 4th deadline. i did it on february 8th. again, i haven't heard anything. so, i did attempt to contact the neighbors at 178 21st avenue and again, i haven't heard anything. >> ok. thank you. mr. sanchez, we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the previous hearing, the zoning administrator stands behind the variance decision letter that was issued for the project. we note this is a dinovo hearing and we appreciate the appellant and property owner have found a resolution here. it is not consistent with the variance decision letter so it would require the board to grant the appeal and adopt these revised plans the board feels

that's is appropriate and work with the executive director on slightly modifying the findings for the variance decision letter. at the last hearing we did ask the project sponsor reach out to the adjacent property impacted. they have been very diligent in doing so and at least in their communications with us, keeping us apprised of their efforts to do so. it doesn't seem there's been any feedback from that neighbor. there would still be, after we wanted tease out concerns before the variance is final. with that, we're available for questions noting again, it's a dinovo hearing and the board is hearing this variance anew and while the zoning administrator supported the original decision and still feels that's probably a slightly better option, we appreciate that they've worked on a resolution and defer to the

board as to how to proceed with this matter. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez, we'll hear from the building department. deputy director duffy, do you have anything to add? >> no, nothing to add. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. looks like we do not have any public comment so commissioners, this matter is submitted. who would like to start? >> i can start. i think that given the neighbors have reached a resolution that

seems acceptable to the planning department, even if they found the original approved plans is better, those most impacted have weighed in and agreed to a set of drawings and i think that we have good grounds to adopt the new plans. >> anyone else like to weigh in. >> i'd like to add zoning administrators direction should we do what commissioner chang has recommended. where do we have to tweak the findings? >> think he said grant the appeal and modify the project asper the plans that were submitted. >> i did work with the executive director, there's a slight change to funding for -- which

we provided so i think the board has probably the necessary changes to the findings. >> right, so you are comfortable with those so if we move forward, our reference in a motion would simply have some mention that which is been previously provided to the executive branch. >> yes, commissioner chang eloquently summarized the planning department's position on this. >> president honda: so unless we have any further deliberation, i am in agreement with commissioner chang and i'd like to make that motion. >> sure. i move to uphold the appeal and adopt the modified plans as proposed. >> we would also need to adopt the draft findings. >> and adopt the draft findings. >> what is this motion? what's the basis of this motion? perhaps the findings are sufficient to grant the variance

which required under planning code section 305? >> you did such a great job. >> is this your first motion? >> that's what i was thinking. [applause] >> i'm deciding on the basis of the findings they're positioned. >> you got your first motion, commissioner. >> so we have a information from commissioner chang to grant the appeal and issue the variance on the condition it be revised to require the plans dated january 6th, 2021. submitted by the determination holder and the adoption of the draft findings submitted by the deputy zoning administrator on the basis these findings are sufficient to grant the variances required under planning code section 305c. on that motion, vice president santacana. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> honda.

>> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0. thank you. so we will now move on to item number 5. one moment here. item number 5 is appeal number 21-001 patricia cannon versus department building inspection subject property is 2634 octavia street. appealing the issuance on december 18th, 2020 to 2634 octavia homeowners association of an alternation permit and replacing fiery gres and stairs in kind due to significant dough tieration and dry rot. no fire wall construction, demolish existing illegal deck at third story. this is permit 2020-09-03-3412 and we'll hear from the appellant first. mr. williams is here representing the appellant. >> thank you. good evening, president honda and members of the board. i'm steve williams.

i represent the appellant, patricia cannon. she lives in a condominium at 2634 octavia street unit number 5. unit number 5 is one of the top floor units in the seven-unit building on octavia street. ms. cannon has lived in this unit for more than 30 years. it's the only home she's owned. she's retired. she lives on a fixed income. she lives alone having lost her partner about 15 years ago. her building has a small homeowners association with sudden seven members to represent the seven units in the building and last year the h.o.a. determined the real stairway on the building which is the h.o.a. common area needed to be repaired or replaced and the h.o.a. obtained some bids for that work and ended up

hiring an engineer of erc engineering was retained. for unknown and still unexplained reasons, the h.o.a. informed mr. yagmire, the deck for number 5 was quote-unquote illegal. mr. yagmire has refused to disclose where he obtained that erroneous member from which member of the h.o.a. whether it's from the president or some other member, he ended up submitting a permit application which has that false information on it. they've now acknowledged it's false information. and it was submitted without msr approval and without a vote of the h.o.a. the permit application was submitted in september. the permit was issued in december of last year. i was contacted by ms. cannon in

early november and after looking at her ownership, documents or deed, and the other h.o.a. documents, i contacted mr. yagmire and the h.o.a. president to request the permit with the false information be withdrawn, the false information is the claim that the deck is somehow illegal. which asked that it be withdrawn or amended. the h.o.a. refused my request and the permit was issued on december 18th of last year and we had no choice but to file this appeal. in my brief, which i hope you had time to review, the public records and the permit history clearly established this decor if you've looked at it closely you'll see it's more of a large landing than an actual deck. whatever you want to call it, is legal i find a permit from 1951

that includes it in the description of work to repair the porch landings, the historic sand born map from 1913 to 1999 show the same stair configuration which continues out through the northern edge of the rear of the building structure. and i believe that this conclusively proves the deck for unit five was part of the original building. i have attached the entire certified sand born map report as exhibit four to my brief. and as exhibit 5, if you can put up exhibit 5 for me. i enlarged and highlighted the configuration of the rear of the building from 1913 and 1999 to

show the extension of the stair structure up to the northern -- keep going, alec. the extension of the stair structure that is large. you can see the stair structure comes out to the very northern edge of the building. these buildings face east and west and so the stair structure runs north and south. that same extension to the northern edge can be seen in the original condominium maps filed in 1979, 1980, and can you keep scrolling through there to exhibit 6. this is the same sanborn map which shows the configuration from 1999 that shows it extending out to the northern edge. if we go to the next one, that's

exhibit 6, please. scroll down a little bit. there. you see the arrow. you can see that the stair configuration meets the very northern edge of the building. you compare that same configuration to the historic maps and the condo maps and the configuration of the plans submitted by the engineer, can we go to the next exhibit 11, please. you will see that the existing configuration, the deck stair structure matches the northern edge and scroll down just a little bit more, you will see exhibit b without the deck on the top floor it falls some six or eight or 10 feet short of the

northern edge. i think conclusively we established that the stair structure, including the deck on the back floor goes to 1913. the original building was built in 1907 and they match. when you look at this and i think it's conclusive evidence of that. and so, it's clear that unit five had this as part of the building. this is fundamental fairness. she purchased her home in 1990, 31 years ago with a specific easement granted to her and title to her unit includes her right to this exclusive easement of the deck and the common area for her deck. as said fourth in my appeal

-->> 30 seconds. >> hopefully you had time to review. obviously it's part of the condominium approval process, there's an inspection process by d.b.i. and a c.f.c. issues for this building in 1980 with the deck and i also attach permits which show specific repairs on the deck and so, she should be entitled to have this deck and have it row constructed. the permit should be either amended or withdrawn by the h.o.a. for something that a louse the reconstruction of the -- >> that's your time. >> with the repair or replacement of her deck, thank you. >> thank you mr. williams. commissioner chang has something that she would like to state for the record.

>> executive director, julie, should i make that for the next item? >> i'm sorry, yes, the next item. >> thank you. >> no problem. >> we'll hear from the permit holder. >> hello, madam. i'm the president of the h.o.a. so, the reason to do the repairs is that the stairs are falling apart. working on the stairs and we tried to close it right now to try and injuries and it's all the and engineers and there's no way to repair it. it's well beyond repair. we have to reconstruct from scratch. redo the concrete and wood and use different techniques. it wasn't done the modern way.

basically we do everything from scratch. so, we have nothing against the deck by default, we had to rebuild in time with the deck so that's why the initial assumption and we talked to professionals and they told us well it's not easy because the stairs have to be (inaudible) but perhaps the deck is a variance or not. the appellant was more towards repairing instead of rebuilding to avoid this kind of problem. so at the end of the day, we tried to gather for months and months the h.o.a. and all members of documents and talked with a lot of professionals, license professionals, engineers and contractors and we couldn't establish the deck was legal or not. so one thing that we grow with h appellant it should not be on the plan. we don't know how it got there, frankly, but we agree that it

shouldn't be there and that's why we have a plan that is available and we ask to update the same plan that we submitted but without the (inaudible) just to make it clear the h.o.a. has month position in the legality because we have no idea and we couldn't find a way to determine that first. also, the engineer proposed the plan without the deck because he says that there was no way for her to get it approved with the deck so we said if your personal opinion it won't be approved, then make a plan without the deck. that's what he did. without it, the h.o.a. modeled engineer to submit the plan as it is. we couldn't find documents. since then we found more documents on the appellant. since we drafted the plan with engineer. so, to keep all options open, as to different oppose to the deck

if it's possible to rebuild it. we come tonight with the original plan that has no deck. the original plan amended without the deck but without the (inaudible). we think it's a fair assumption. on a fair plan with the deck. so, we defined that perhaps best for possible to propose a deck that is not exactly as it is today and that was when so today is kind of like 5x12 and 25 years ago it was smaller than that because it was extended in the meantime. basically the same size. so, we hope that we'll have authority how to and we would like a solution.

lastly, we are trying to do the right thing for all members that's including the a pel apartment. appellant. we want something approved by the city that is doable by license professionals and repairs are not doable we have to rebuild. so we have to find a solution. we are flexible. we come with three versions of the plan. we can make another one if you have another request. we are very flexible. we have no position of the legality of the deck. we have no idea. if anything was said about that, it's a miscommunication and we apologize. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the subject property at 2634 octavia street is in rhq zoning

district. it's a fairly unique lot that it has a seven-unit on it where only two units would be allowed. the lot is about 32 and a half feet wide and 80 feet deep. wide and shallower. one of the issues that comes up with this permit is all the work is at the rear of the property. the building is nearly full-lot coverage and the stairs, that is to be replaced is within the required rear yard. there is an interpretation that allows for a required means of egress, a second means of egress under the building code to be replaced without need for a variance as long as it's generally within the same footprint or smaller as needed out of the code. it does not extent to decks and so a deck would not be allowed to be replaced without a variance in this case. so the plans that were approved as part of this don't have the replacement of the deck, which is complies with the planning

code. unfortunately, the a pel appellant' proposal would require a variance. that's the issue we have in this case. i know many versions were only really brought to our attention earlier today. there is a proposal that has the repair of the deck and it's not removed and replaced and the rest of the stairs are reconstructed and i don't know if that is really a valid or feasible proposal. something like that could be code compliant. it's just a question under the planning code. deputy director buffy will speak to the other issues with the permit. if there's a fire hall 10 feet

in height, we would require a variance, even if it's just the stairs. so there's some of the things we're dealing with here and what complicates the issue here is that this whole structure is in the required rear yard. it's not a complying and so there's very limited ability to reconstruct that. i'm available for questions if the board has any. >> so, thank you for clarifying. i just want to (inaudible). we have a deck that is arguably a staircase and deck which is arguably tested standing for decades and decades and decades and decades. it has now going down and requires replacement. but because the rules have changed with regards to what is legal and what is not legal, even though it was legal and it may have been legal in the past

or was built originally and obviously approved by someone, now it's not. so, if this structure, which is the stairway and including the deck is rebuilt, then that's going to trigger new rules and it will require a variance. correct? >> i believe that the assessor records the building was built in 1904 so it was before we had a planning code and so everything at the rear of the stairs and the deck are within the required rear yard and the reconstruction of the stairs only is allowed by interpretation with very specific facts and the plans that are before you are consistent with that interpretation. the issue here is the deck and so the deck cannot be replaced without a variant.

>> if we certainly -- the owner of the condominium on the top floor wants her deck succinct, so i would, if that happened, and we find the appellant, it's going to basically make this permit go away and they're going to refile and then the refiling they're going to get a variant as part of their process. is that what i'm reading here? >> yes, if the board's position is that this deck is available element of the unit and maintained, the board would have to grant the appeal and deny the permit and they would have to seek another path which would be proposal that would be the reconstruction of the deck. >> and the flip-flop, if we were

to -- there's really no way that we could have adopt any plans that would included that and therefore, uphold the appeal. but allow the permit to move forward with plans, is that true is it. >> right. if the board were to approve the replacement of the deck within the required rear yard, the planning code require variance where none has been granted. >> that's what i thought. we're stuck. >> commission lazarus. >> you are on mute. >> want to put you in an awkward

position but you are comfortable and opinion is to the likelihood of a variance being granted and. >> haven't had the chaps to discuss with the zoning administrator. it is close to the rear property line and whether a fire wall would be required and definitely if a fire wall is to be required and to replace it if it is exactly end kind and it's probably a little bit easier so we have to see the actual permit and we can go through that process. >> fair enough. >> thank you. >> my question is what came first the chicken or the egg, right? evidently this deck and its landing and its stairs have been here, according to the map, forever. by the disclosures, or the

package, document five, it looks like it's been repaired or modified in the '90s. to me, i would also be leading in the same way that commissioner swig would. if this property was built within it, it would be nice to keep the building intact and keep the original intact as well. >> >> president honda: commissioner chang. >> question for the zoning administrator. understand that reconstruction the deck would require a variance that does repair of the deck. would repair of the deck require a variance? >> it's repair and we generally rely of department of building inspection for these determinations if it's a repair permit of of a existing element of the building and that can generally be done without a variance. if you repair half of it by replacing it and then row pair e

other half replacing it, that's not allowed. it looks like this is originally original or it wouldn't be what they're doing here so we defer to department building inspection and the project architect, our engineer whether it's feasible hopefully they can speak to that. >> is there a certain percentage where you can do repairs and then it's -- i mean, looking at the pictures in the photo, i don't think this is repair able at the point. it's dry rot is substantial and it seems like it's been patch worked over the years. i personally would not stand on that deck. >> department building inspection does have standards for what is repair versus replacement and the percentage is my understanding. >> sorry, commissioner chang, were you finished with your question? >> i was just trying to find a viable solution. i think i agree with president

honda and commissioner swig that, you know, the deck has been part of the enjoyment of the unit since the owner has purchased it. if the deck is repair able, then a variance wouldn't be required and perhaps that might be the easiest path forward. i would like to ask the project architect or engineer or the building department if that's been -- something that's been explored. >> thank you. >> ok. thank you. so we'll now move onto the department building inspection. deputy director duffy. >> joe duffy d.b.i. the permit under appeal tonight, i'll just read out the details on it first. the existing significant deterioration on dry rot. no fire wall construction.

demo existing illegal deck on the third-storey. the building permit and intake around the third of september 2020. and it went through the form 8 over the approval. and it went through planning and building and fire department on our permit center and it got issued on the 18th of december and suspended on the fourth of january. these types of projects dbi has a couple of and sometimes with a building permit and and that left and existing structure without any drawings at all. you can do some minor repairs to this and get them into good shape. then it's usually that doesn't require -- we sometimes run them by planning but there's no

structural drawings required and the other way to do it, here they could go more than 50% and do a repair permit but it would require drawings. if they wanted to replace in kind, exactly in the same configuration, there are no fire wall is it actually required. as long as it's the same configuration, no changes and we would allow you that and that's been a common policy of dbi since i've been there for 20 years anyway. it does allow the struck you're to be replaced in the same original footprint as they say it. it is, as you heard mr. sanchez, the planning department may require a variance that could hold up the project and my fear on these types of projects is it looks like there's some driveway rot. it mentions that in the photographs. if we have to put it through a variance process, we could be waiting maybe another year and

we've got another year's worth of deterioration. from a personal point of view, i like to see these permits being issued. if sometimes something that's been there for many years and it looks like that, whatever we can way get a permit to these people, the sooner the better rather than going back because it looks like it's a dry rot issue. i think they want to change that. so i'm available for any questions. >> i got a question. so, when you say replacing kind, it looks like the deck was slightly modified in the last 20 years to extend another foot. if you look at document 5, you can see it's pushed out a little further. would you recommend that it stay exactly like that or go back a foot?

>> if it did get modified 20 years ago, it should be cut back to the original. we would allow the replacement in kind of the existing structure that existed for 30 years or whatever the deck has been there. that would be the understanding that i would have. i think mr. sanchez would grow that modifications that were made to the deck maybe with probably without a permit and now they're in the required rear yard setback, that would trigger the planning department process. maybe the solution is to put it back originally. >> mr. swig, you have a question. >> joe, i want to make sure we're not in conflict with each other. i fully degree with your direction and i think it is to replace enkind and issue the permit. what i really strongly heard

from scott sanchez was, if you replace this deck, you are figure and upgrade to the current mandates the planning department. how do we stop you guys from fighting? who is right or who is wrong? i just, you know, you are saying something which would be the path of least resistance and i certainly wouldn't disagree with it. scott seems to be going the other way saying, well, if you do this, because i think 1904, you know, pro development of standards, any of you touched this structure significantly you are going to trigger falling under the new rules. how do we -- where are we going with this, guys, without getting in a fight? >> i think that's directed at -- >> mr. duffy and then

mr. sanchez can comment on his view. >> well, we never fight with planning. we certainly like a lively discussion about the planning code and the requirements in san francisco. >> sorry. >> that's all it is, there's always a good conversation without one. the rear stairs and decks are difficult because as i said, and i respect the planning code, obviously, but they are, as building when you are dealing with a building code, and wore dealing with something that's deteriorated and dry rotted, i don't want to have to tell these people not to use the back deck and stairs because it's an ' grass path and our permit process where are we at with that and that's where i'm coming from. without disrespecting the code, i do think that -- there's just thinking out loud, we node to

hear from the engineer and architect. can we do a minimal repair on the deck to allow it to remain and repair the stairs. i'm not sure if that's possible. but what i did hear mr. sanchez said the stairs could be replaced as long as the deck isn't replaced. the deck is the problem for planning. >> i believe they said they were not able to repair. it would have to be rebuilt. i think that's what the h.o.a. president said. maybe they can clarify that later. >> we have building inspection planning department each as different roles and responsibilities and priorities. definitely i know where deputy director is coming from and they

can comply with all the requirements of the city so it's a layer and did may be preferable because it's adjusting life safety issue but it may not need planning code requirements, that has applied and respected. they could approve or recommend approval of a design of a project that doesn't make sense from a life safety perspective and dbi said you can't build it that way. all the and and you need a variance and people go through that process and in this case,

and apply for a permit to restore the deck. i mean, that would have to be that may be another way, after the fact, go ahead if it is imminent life safety issue for the stairs, have that go through now and then separately have them go through a process of a variance for the deck if that's to be restored. >> we quick question for you, mr. sanchez and i think commissioner chang had a question. how long would that process be? if they went for the variance process right now and knowing there's potential life issues, how long is ta process through planning at this point? >> it could be six months for a

variance? >> maybe longer or six months? >> it's an unprecedented manner and staffing and the variance is about six months and six monthss is what we're looking at. >> commissioner chang, do you have a question? >> i just wanted to see if the h.o.a. or the project architect to answer the question of the repair of the deck. perhaps it was already stated and i just missed it. >> so, the engineer is not here today and it's my fault. the opinion from all the professionals and all different

contractors and you can't walk on part of the staff and the deck and it's one you have. it's (inaudible) too. so we could ask like a formal opinion or return opinion and the consensus it could be rebuilt. not part of the structure could be repaired. >> thank you. your question is answered. >> thank you, we'll now move on to public comment and i believe we have a speaker who called in. hello, please call in user number 2, please, go ahead. user number 3. try dialing star 6. you might be able to unmute

yourself. >> caller: hello. >> welcome. >> caller: hi. thank you for allowing me. >> you have three minutes. >> caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. my family and i live on the property that borders the rear of this condo building and thus directly impacted by the states stairsand deck in question thats on property line. the deck abuts the side of our backyard and we support the fact that it is a safety issue and the stairs need to be repaired -- i'm sorry, reconstructed. we are opposed to reconstructing the deck for privacy and noise concerns. it was unclear to us exactly

when the deck was expanded to its current size. it literally is closer to our backyard than my actual house is and it has a direct side of view, right into our bedrooms and we condition leave the drapes open and on many occasions, we have actually been at the receiving end of some unpleasentrys from the deck and my kids are fearful of being in the backyard because of this deck and so, i understand that she has enjoyed this deck but we also think that there is a reason for the current planning codes in place to protect neighbors from having such close structures to the property line.

so, i don't want to pose the reconstruction of the stairs as i see it and i see that it is very dilapidated and needs to be reconstructed in the event of any kind of life-threatening incidents. so, anyhow, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. >> thank you, we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: caller, are you still there? >> caller: yes, i am. >> president honda: so how long have you lived at the adjacent property? >> for seven years. >> president honda: so the deck was it a concern when you moved into the property? >> caller: i thought it was very close to our property line. i did not, you know, i was not aware of all of the planning codes that are in place. it literally is the best part of that deck is exactly on our property line. so much that i have a tree in

that area and -- i'm not sure if she has actually but she could actually reach over and do some trimming. she's right on the property line. >> according to the plans that were submitted in the brief, i believe the original deck was the same size just less one foot. so if there's been any extension, it appears it's gone one foot towards, i guess your property. >> caller: yes, i think i also saw that there was some firsthand accounts provided from someone with knowledge of the property that indicated that there was some alteration of this deck in the last 20 years as alluded to. so i think it's unclear exactly what those alterations were. which is why there was why there was a question around the legallality of it. >> we're lucky in san francisco

to have maps that show how large things are over the years. thank you, very much. >> is there anyone else here public comment. if you dial in press star 9. i don't see a hand rised. mr. williams, you have three minutes. >> i had to unmute. this deck is nowhere near the property line. if you look at the photographs and you look at the plans, it's four or five feet from the property line. it's no in way is it on the property line. we've seen lots and lots of decks on the property line. it's troubling the h.o.a. didn't

put any proof of anything that they're doing or saying in the record. they say oh, there's no way to repair it, et cetera, et cetera but they don't have an engineer here and architect here and not one whiff of it in the record. they claim they have legality and none of that is in the record. they claim they have no position but they filed the building permit application calling it illegal. i believe the board of appeals has the power to issue a permit to completely replace the stair and the deck tonight. the board of appeals and other cases has exceeded the height limit. the board of appeals in other cases has allowed -- this isn't a deck, it's within the stair configuration, it's not expanded at all and it could be reduced to its original size. that could be issued tonight. i believe it could be issued tonight with a complete rebuild

and replacement of the stair structure of the stairs leading to the deck and the structures that support the deck. a repair of the deck. if that fits in better with the. this shouldn't require a variance. i anticipated this argument and i put it in the brief i cited a code section that i can confirm that it shouldn't require a variance and the board of appeals has the power to over rule that and issue this permit tonight if it wishes. i'm asking, on behalf of this appellant and the plan 2b approved and the entire structure be rebuilt on the condition that the h.o.a. seeks and obtains a variance to allow her deck to be built as planning on that or number three, which was the plan that i submitted

sometimes today that it be rebuilt in kind that the stairs and the structure supporting the deck be completely reconstructed and the deck be row paired as needed in time. >> thank you, very much. thank you for understanding about the needs of this woman and the fact that she purchased this thing 30 -- >> thank you mr. williams. your time is up. we'll now hear from mr. gam onpress, you have three minutes, sir. >> yes, so to keep it short, we agree and we hope that you could approve one of the plans that we sent. a bit late, sorry for that, tonight. waiting six more informs or mont more informs is a problem. dry rot is landing on two levels and it's going inside the building so there's already some dry rot in the building. if you do the walk it's fine but if you wait another year, it's

not fine. you are going to contaminate and you have to repair inside the building. so we would like to avoid that if possible. in terms of the options, we submitted a plan without a deck and with the deck flush with the building and going up to the property line of the neighbor executive property line and so if you can approve one of them, that would be the ideal case for us and if you think that the only ways to go for a variance and the h.o.a. would have to vote on it and talk about it but if you could give us some estimator opinion about what we should do and what is your duty or what you recommend we do, we would appreciate it. we are all doing that the best we can. we are not professionals and we would like to have guidance to

best proceed with that. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. couple brief points. so, if you look on the plans that were submitted for this permit, i'm looking on the site plan and it does show that the deck and stairs extend to the rear property line. it's not near the rear property line or the site property lights. according to the plans it's on the rear property line and the deck is a couple feet away from the north side property line. it's my understanding that the caller was at the property adjacent to the wear of the subject property and so their rear yard kind of abuts with the rear yard of the subject property. and this is a challenging case. we have heard concerns from a neighbor, she's about privacy and the deck and the re

construction of the deck. if there's a separate variance process, those things could be properly heard and decided by the zoning administrator. and any decision could be appealed to the board of appeals. at this point, there's been no public notice of reconstruction of the deck itself. it's only been the row reconstruction of the stairs. i'm happy that the caller was able to call in and express their concerns. even though, you know, the deck structure may predate everyone on this call through when we were born, but it doesn't mean it doesn't need to meet current codes many of the fact they want to reconstruct it, they need to meet current codes. i appreciate the arguments of the the appellant that the board has great powers and we do rely on the board to make these difficult decisions but our opinion is such work rice a

variance and i appreciate that the argument of the appellant and it benefits his client to have that argument they have this authority in another case it wouldn't benefit we are looking at this and being consistent and how we apply these roles and we can uphold the permit and if we want to make the change to the location of legal versus illegal. we think that if the deck is to be replaced it needs to go through the variance process and the neighbor can have their variant process at that point regarding the privacy concerns that they have with the deck as well. and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez. so, usually what comes before this body is a non-conforming or a deck that's been put up without permit. and they're trying to seek

legalization. in this particular case, we have a deck that evidently, according to the map, is probably original or period to the property. and so, you know, the planning department spends time deciding and architectal features that are important. wouldn't this be similar in that case? when the builder built this, this was an original design to the property? >> i think your probably speaking more to the historic preservation issue and concerns with the department. generally those are row lie ant on the publicly facing the street facing aspects of the property. this is not going to be a preservation issue. the demolition of the deck. it doesn't rise to that level. it wouldn't be a preservation issue to remove the deck and

stairs, even if they have been there for a long time. >> thank you. we'll hear from deputy director duffy. anything further? >> commissioners, just, i'm just thinking of my experience of dealing with those types of issues in the field over the many years. they are difficult and challenging as mr. sanchez said as well. it's a pity the architect or engineer aren't here so they can give us a description of how bad this deck is. it looks bad, but sometimes these conditions can last for, a year. there is, in the past, we've all just had to put our thinking hats on here. we could possibly issue a permit for some emergency repairs to let a contractor go in there for a day or two to strengthen up some of the existing structure and they could apply for building permit with the variance and the planning

department's approval and come up in six months or whatever that is with the proper permit that they need to take care of it. that permit then could be appealed and the neighborhood isn't happy about the deck could be involved. i'm just thinking out loud here, there are ways for us to work with engineers and architects to make things safe on a case-by-case basis where we're trying to preserve something we know how to take through a longer process of approval such as the variance and you know i mean, if this deck got made bigger without a permit in the past 20 years, that probably will come no account with planning. i hope and think the fire wall issue that d.b.i., i don't work in plan check, but i don't think the fire wall is going to come in here. those fire walls are an ordeal and if they're pulling it become pretty much the same way, we should be allow the rebuilding

of it. i'm just putting the emergency permit out there that we can work with them on and i'm not sure if that's something that we can hear back from them on. i just wanted to add that and i'm available for answers. >> president honda: thank you. >> mr. duffy, the emergency permit, is that a separate event from tonight? so, regardless of how we move forward, unless we say build it, would the process be to deny -- to stop the permit because it's illegal and require a variance and then, as an advisory as far

as hearings, advise the owners of the building to file for an emergency permit as a stop gap? how does that work? >> yeah, i would imagine you would be denying this permit going forward and it could start a process of just obtaining an emergency permit with our plans. within the next week or two with d.b.i., these are only suggestions. i think that this permit tonight would be dead and they could give them something to make the deck safe. i don't know if this is viable or not. they could apply for the permit they probably should have applied for in the first place with the planning department's review and approval. the other thing, mr. williams mentioned and i don't think this is possible. there is the option of repairing that top deck and replacing the stairs if the gentleman said that that was beyond that.

so, that would be something that i think the board could modify this permit. i'm just giving you some options, that's all. >> ok, thank you. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i'd like to start, please. so, if we go with mr. duffy's original, very good idea, unfortunately we have lots of good ideas and also very justified direction. mr. duffy is very good idea is, issue the permit and replace it as it is. and he is seem to be very sure that that would be ok.

i hear that flies in the face and abuses the planning department's codes and so that makes it not such a good idea from a legal standpoint and i'm taken the position we don't want to set a precedent because happen to like one projector we feel sorry for a permit holder and we abuse the statues of the planning department. so that is really problematic. i think the idea that mr. duffy puts forward with the advisory that if this is a safety issue and this stairway will fall down and create a safety problem and we should deny the permit and

suggestion they file for an emergency permit and go through the proper process and mr. sanchez is recommending which is file for the permit which will require a variance and then we'll probably see you all back here several months from now. at least the safety issue and the stairway will be handled at least temporarily and i really do believe the stairway and the deck should be repaired in kind. i do believe that if we come back with a variance, that i would support that variance, projecting what i would see it look like. so, i would like my fellow commissioners points of view on that, which i think is that we should not allow this permit to

go forward in anyway, shape or form. because of the abuses of the planning code and we should suggest the emergency repairs be done and then we'll probably see it later. >> president honda: any other commissioners that would like to weigh in? >> i'm fine with that approach. >> commissioner chang. >> i'm fine with that approach. >> commissioner santacana. >> so, the thinking is, i mean, this will come back and wore just ok with that? >> maybe, maybe not. depends on what happens with the variance. >> yeah, right. >> ok. >> i'm good with it. we have potential of it coming back and it doesn't have to come back and it goes smoothly and

it's difficult and they're not using and of the planning and the planning department. >> there's an additional process. i agree but i do, as agree with commissioner swig, i think these are -- these have been a part of the property since its construction and i believe that these are property rights that should not be ignored. if it came back as an appeal, i would support the deck being rebuilt in kind. so, commissioner swig, do you have a motion that our executive director would put together so well. >> i have no clue how to put that motion together. >> our executive director would. >> i think it's pretty straight forward, isn't it? >> well, before we get there, i see that deputy director has his hand raised. president honda, can we hear from him now?

>> president honda: yes. >> sorry, just i'm one other thing that i didn't say was that if you want today give us a couple of weeks and we can do a to make sure this emergency permit is viable and i came up with that idea and maybe we should leave it a couple of weeks and see how bad that thing is and it's it's something i forgot to say, i'm sorry. >> why think it's going to change anything and i was stand on the same and we are in violation of the planning code and setting a precedent so that mr. williams or one of his peers could come back later and say you did it for this guy. do it for me. i'd like to keep it clean and i

believe mr. sanchez is correct on his point of view even though i like mr. duffy's idea better. i'd like to keep it clean and so probably, if they can do it, get an emergency permit it's fine and that's not our business tonight and our business is to rule on and on this report. i don't think it should move forward. >> i believe mr. lazarus has a question. >> i don't know if there's any harm in a two-week continuance and (inaudible). >> you are breaking up commissioner lazarus. your connection is not great. >> sorry. i don't see the harm in a two-week continuance other than two weeks of risky staircase. if it allows -- i mean, we're going to did not eye the permit

potential leon the basis that there could be an emergency permit issue but now, that potentially and and they have an opportunity to go out and make that evaluation and additionally we could hear some more from the contractor and the engineer whomever, about their vows on it as well so, i would consider a two-week continuance. >> i wouldn't have a problem with that. >> i was just going to agree with commissioner lazarus and she continued my thoughts. >> why don't you make a motion and i would support that motion. >> i'm going to move to continue

this for two weeks so that the building department, pref blee, deputy director duffy can do an inspection and inform the board the its next meeting to the viability of an emergency permit. >> madam director, what does our schedule look like? >> we can put it on the third or the tenth. >> you also want to hear feedback from the engineer? is that another basis for continuance? >> yes. that as well and i assume inspector duffy would probably have those conversations. inspector duffy is two or three weeks better for you? >> that would be, if you don't mind. >> how about for the permit holder and the council? is march 10th going to be ok for you guys? >> yes.

>> ok. so, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this matter to march 10th so that d.b.i. can conduct a site inspection to be able to report back to the board on the viability of an emergency permit and so that the engineer for the project can report back to the board regarding the deck. i do see mr. williams has his hand raised. we are in the middle of a motion. president honda -- >> president honda: the only would be march 10th ok, council? >> it's not. so would you like to move it further? >> the 17th would work or the third but i'm flying out of town at 2:30 on the afternoon of march 10th. >> president honda: which covid flight are you on? >> one to arizona. >> president honda: it's a covid flight. >> we have the 24th would be

next. we don't have one on the 17th. march 24th? march 3rd, 10th or 24th. he can't do the tenth. >> now we're talking about a long delay. do you want to try to squeeze it on the third? deputy director duffy, would that work? >> sorry. that will work for me. yes, i'm make it work. i'll change things around. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so just a tweak on that motion. that motion is to continue this matter to march 3rd for the reasons i previously stated. on that motion, voice president santacana. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0. so, are we going to allow for any further briefing or documents to be submitted by any of the parties, the engineer or

do we just want them to report back at this point? president honda? we can't hear you. >> president honda: sorry. i don't think we need any other additional information. i mean, the department will be there. >> each party will have throw minutes each and we'll have no rebuttal. we're moving on to item number 620-404-1900 bryant street investors llc versing the zoning administrator and subject property is 535 florida street, appealing the issuance on may 29th, 2020 to 1900 bryant street investors. determination that building permit number 201210193467 changed the previous restaurant use to two separate principal uses. catering and other retail sales and services. this is planning code section

890.102 many of the catering use has a total of 6,408 square feet despite being on separate properties. the catering and retail use on lot 002 could be converted to an accessory calf ter why for a laboratory use on lot 05 pursuant to planning code section 803.3b1c and result in the conversion of 5,000 square feet or more of pdr use on a property zoned umu on july 1st, 2016. as such it would replace .75 square feet of pdr space converted pursuant to planning code section 202.9. this is record number 2020-001656 and we will hear from the appellant first. this is a preliminary matter. commissioner chang has something to disclose. >> i'm a director at a firm that has retained them to represent

us on certain matters, however, that will not have a bearing on my decision tonight. >> thank you, commissioner chang. so, we will hear first from i believe mr. aberams. >> jim, legal council to the property owner, 900 bryant street investors. i have a presentation that i'm going to share with you, which i have not successfully done. let me -- >> we'll pause the time. >> >> let me try this one more time. >> councilor, tall but in this zoom you look really tall. [laughter] >> let's see, let's do this. this way. ok, here we go. does that work? >> yeah. >> we see it. >> great. >> so, the core question of that matter is weather the second there were space at 535 florida street was permitted for office use as opposed to accessory

office use. this is a major distinction. and as this board understands, in accessory office use is an actual office use but considered incidental to and part of another use and like the office of the back of a grocery store to manage a grocery store and in this example, the accessory office would be considered part of the retail use as opposed to an office use. with regard to 535 florida street we believe the answer is clear and the black letter of the permits is positive. for everyone, this is a situation there's only one building permit and one set of plans whose governing the project so we don't have to look at a wide variety of plans and permits. we have one permit and one set of plans many of the building permit signed by planning a proves an office use. not an accessory use. this was not provided by prior council to the d.a. and lod request, which we believe may have led to unnecessary confusion. the project description in the

building plan signed by planning states that office is the proposed use on the second floor. critically, these permits were approved in 2012 when office was principally permitted or as some people say as of right use at this property. therefore, the sole approval required to establish an office use was the sign off of a building permit by planning. because this occurred, and the permit was not appealed to the planning commission or this board, we submit that an office use was approved on the second floor. as shown here, this is a zoom in of the back of the building permit. doug vu, the planner assigned to the project in southeast quadrant wrote the approved use was office at the second-storey. to read this permit differently would mean that the actual words written by planning staff on the permit should be disregarded. likewise, the cover sheet project description of the building plan associated with the permit, states that the proposed use of a second floor is office space. this sheet is also signed off by

doug vu planning department staff at the same time. in 2012, up until 2020, office was principal blee permitted on the second floor of this building under planning code section 843 and they do not disagree office was permitted at this location. again, we believe that the black letter of permit and any argument that the planning staff intended to mean something different than what was written on the permit is arbitrary and not supported by the record. any intent based justification for reading the permit differently than what it actually says is also undermined by the fact the distinction between office use and accessory office use was a hot topic in 2012 when these permits were approved. after spending 10 years completing the rezoning the question of whether existing and proposed office uses were illegally established throughout soma, the mission and potrero hill was a funded policy

initiative. there was an amnesty program for offices to be legalized and instituted a consistent practice of stating on permits whether any propose the office use was accessoriment there are many comparable examples where accessory office used is clear and unequivocal. like here, such as 1401 16th street. in 2011, one year before the 535 florida permit in question here, planning approved a permit for the use of 1406 16th street which is a flew becomes away and denoted clearly accessory office. second, the ceramics building across the street, across florida street from 535 florida was permit inside 2012, nearly concurrently with the permits. and in this case, cory teague, who is the da and a planner and the colleague of doug vu said it was an southbound sis row use

among other uses. here is another portion of that permit denoting accessory office. and again, this building permit was for a project at the same time across the street in the same umu zoning district as 535 florida. and although we do not believe this evidence is necessary or dispositive, we have submitted a written affidavit from chuck siegel, who is charles from charles chocolates, it was the corporate headquarters rather than an office to manage the downstairs uses. charles accounting marketing and hr and other corp at activities were all managed from this space. releasing 535 florida, they operated exhibition kitchens paired with retail storefronts in the bay area in emeryville, at 6529 hollis street. and the west field shopping center on market street. during this period, charles chocolate was a multi-million

dollar business enterprise with runs of retailers across the country including prominent retailers such as whole foods and starbucks. the company was operated and managed from 535 florida street and as you can see from this quote from charles siegel, one of the primary reasons why they leased this space, was to use it as their corporate headquarters and the fact that office was allowed here by zoning was important factor to them in their decision. in conclusion, we request that the board over continue the l.o.d. and rely on the plain language of the building permit and plans approved by planning. respectfully, the position relies on a retrospective interpretation of the permit and opinion that the office space appears to have been used in an accessory manner. given the office was principally permitted and the permit a fact factway that use it's arbitrary. what if charles chocolates had grown and operated a larger

group of stores and facilities from this location? despite office buying being use, the interpretation meant if they grew, they would have had to vacate the space to find another location for its office or more oddly to be required to submit another duplicate permit that again requested approval for the office use at exact same location. we don't understand why a second permit again denoting office as the proposed use of the property would be seen differently than the first permit with the same language. this l.o.d. has important ramifications for the on going operation of the value of the building. based on changes and zone tag occurred in 2016 under proposition x. we're happy to discuss these concerns but we don't think that they're crucial to the core question here. >> thank you. >> thank you. councilor, i do have a question.

so, regarding the pdr usage, how do you think it does not apply to your client? >> so, the issue is whether or not there's 5,000 square feet of pdr use at this site. the lod clearly explains that there's a principal retail use and a principal catering use on the site and because the catering use is a pdr use, it's the amount of pdr space is over 5,000 square feet than prop x is triggered. the question is whether or not this office use for charles chocolates is part of that catering use, as an accessory office and therefore a pdr use. or whether or not that office is separate from the catering use as a corporate headquarters and not part of the pdr use. if this board makes the determination that this is a principal office rather than an accessory office, there would not be more than 5,000 square feet of pda space and prop x won be triggered.

>> president honda: thank you. >> you are welcome. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. subject property at 535 florida street located within a umu or urban mixed use zoning district. at issue here with the letter of determination is ex low what president honda was getting to. the core question is whether or not the use that is currently there, under these building permits would constitute a pdr use to prop x. the letter of determination request was submitted a year ago by different council and i peer mr. abrams filed the appeal and is trying to i think better articulate the concerns of his client. we believe that the letter of determination was properly issued. we have reviewed the materials that mr. abe rams have provided and is maintaining the conclusion. really the issue here is that

2012 permit, which sought to change the use from the previous restaurant use to catering and retail, the 7,179 square feet of that, about 771 square feet is retail, or was retail and 6,408 were catering and within that catering, there was about 1,827 square feet of office which was, we saw, an accessory. a fairly small amount. less than 2,000 square feet of office. it was less than one-third of the over all area of the catering use. which fits within the accessory use requirements. while office would have been a principally permitted use at the time, it would have required a couple of things, first, the building itself is a fairly large building. i think it's had a unique history to it. but the records list that's it was constructed in 1923 and contains 54,765 square feet of commercial mixed uses on three-storeys and i think

there's some development in this property as well. it's part of a larger site. so at that time, they would have been required to record a notice of special restrictions designating the floor. because the umu controls, while offices allowed, you are limited into how many floors of office. they would have been required to record a notice of special restrictions designating that as office-storey. section 312 neighborhood notification would require for the change of use from the restaurant to the office and we did discuss this with the appellant. that same requirement would have applied for the change of restaurant to catering or retail or the restaurant to catering. the 12 notice was done at the time. certainly, going to office use, it would have been documented differently through the notice of special restrictions.

and it should have required the notice. in terms of the plain language of the permit and if i can share with the board, the permit itself, i appreciate the appellant has provided parts of the permit but let me just give you the cover. so present use restaurant, proposed use, commercial kitchen/retail. what's the full description here? interior ti of existing restaurant into new commercial kitchen and restaurant. new fixtures and finishes and equipment, ma cal cal pluming and no exterior changes. no mention any of the present use and proposed use of office and the project description. certainly, on the plans, it does show the office and certainly on page 2 we don't doubt that staff call it out that there's office at the second-storey.

we don't believe that the permit quite as clearly shows the change to a separate principle office use that the appellant argues. and so, i can stop the sharing there. so, one of the concerns raised by the appellant is how this would a ploy to other pdr uses and that differ from the issues and concerns raised by the appellant i'm concerned how it impacts pdr uses moving forward many of it's very common for pdr uses to have accessory offices that control what goes on within that building and also the shipping to their wholesale clients and all their commercial clients. we do consider that to be a separate principal office use in going along the arguments that the appellant has, it's its own

principal office use. we understand that their goal is to make a prop x won't apply. if the office use, which is again, less than 2,000 square feet, less than a third of the catering -- less than 2,000 squared feet as office, way less than a third. a bit less than a third and their goal is quite clever and it is if the board finds that is separate independent principal office, then that is enough to get them under 5,000 square feet, province x doesn't have to apply, they don't have to preserve this as pdr. i understand the goal and it doesn't impact the economics of the building. we believe the permit sought to change those from restaurant to catering and row dale, that's retail, that's thelanguage on tt

means this is more than 5,000 square feet of catering use was the last legal use and it would be subject to prop x. we appreciate the arguments raised by the appellant. the zoning administrator took time reviewing this. before the appellant was involved, with the previous council, and then subsequent we reviewed all this material again and we have the same conclusion and it was considered determination this is not prance pal office, it's accessory office and that the property will be subject available to prop x. i'm available to any questions the board may have. >> mr. sanchez, the permit holders council showed that your staff puts accessory office. so, is there a reason why -- is

there a difference between accessory office and office and why would they just put office rather than accessory office? is that member still with the planning department? >> they are no longer with the planning department. we can't ask them and this is a permit that did occur in 2012. it would have been subject -- had that been the intent, it should have been on the cover of the permit. it should have been the po posed use. it should have said office. why staff did that rather than putting accessory office was an oversight. i think they were trying to document everything that was happening in this space. regretfully, they should have been as clear as mr. keying was in his approval of the project across the street and note being accessory office. in reviewing this, he found this was in fact access row office and not a separate prance pal office use. >> president honda: maybe one of these days we should have the da defend his own stuff in front of

this body sometimes. thank you. >> thank you. >> just checking into to see if dbi wants to add anything to this case? >> nothing to add. >> thank you. >> ok. we are now moving on to public comment. is anyone here to provide public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. we will move on to rebuttal. mr. abe rams, you have three minutes >> thank you very much, i appreciate scott's comments but he is making intent-based arguments as opposed to arguments on the black letter of permits. the front page of the permit is completed by a contractor who is making their best effort to fill out the permit in the correct manner. what's really dispositive here is what the planning staff writes on the permit. what is shown in the plans as prepared by the architects and signed off by the planning department. so although the front page of the plan describes the project it's from a building code compliance standpoint, not a

planning code compliance standpoint and the box in the back is dispositive issue in terms of what the permitted use is. there's been many, many circumstances where the back of the permit describes what the use is and the front page of the permit isn't as clear and the planning department and the zoning administrator follow what the planning department wrote as opposed to what the contractor who may not be ultra-informed wrote. i grow an nsr is required if you are doing an office space. why that didn't occur is a mystery. it is a very unusual requirement of the planning code. it's something that we would be happy to do now. it doesn't surprise me that that may have been missed, given that it's an unusual requirement. it's not something that is typically required when you are doing a principally required permit. scott is also making a policy argument about pdr spaces and a desire to have offices for pdr spaces not be considered to be principal but the fact they

could be considered access row y doesn't mean it was not a permitted principal office. it was prance pally permitted by the zoning and the applicant believed he was getting a principal office. it was allowed by the law and to deny the applicant his rights under the law by reading a permit as saying something different than what it actually says, i think it's unfair. and so if there's a policy argument to be made that accessory office should be allowed to have pdr districts, that's fine but that's not really relevant to the issue here, which is the umu director offices were allowed and permitted at this time. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. you are finished, correct? >> i am, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. abrams what confuses me is how even -- i'm not going to

argue with you as to whether the office upstairs served the charles chocolate chain or not. it would seem very odd that a charles chocolate office upstairs from a charles chocolate retailer would not have some portion of that office's activities accessory to the retail operation down stairs. so, if any one portion of the office upstairs provides services accounting or whatever, for the retailers down stairs, then in effect, it is an accessory office while also serving a purpose as a primary office for the corporation as a whole. how do you respond to that? >> i think that we're open to the idea that a portion of the office was accessory to the

retail use down stairs. and it was serving to operate the retail store down tears. there are also other retail stores with space was operating. and there were also other facilities that this location was operating. there are storage facilities, there was packaging facilities, this was again, this was the only headquarters that existed for this company, right. so to the extent that there was a synergy with the down stairs retail use, you know, i think it's important. again, maybe that would be a sub component of what was happening in that space. >> would you consider that maybe unknowingly, that charles chocolate was operating illegally and that in fact it should not have been a principal office and they didn't get caught and in fact it was unto the assumption of the planning department it was operating as an accessory office and that's also something that is

confusing. i'm not being accusatory but that -- whether naively or dishonestly it could have occurred and knowingly a office could have been operating illegally under those situations. >> commissioner, there will be nothing for them to gain by doing that. this was permitted by-law at the time. so, this use was absolutely allowed by the zoning. there was no approval required other than a building permit being signed by planning. so, there would be no reason for any kind of sub tra fuge or to use this space for something it wasn't allowed for. it was allowed as a principal office. >> thank you for that clarification. >> president honda. >> president honda: so, councilor, what triggered this?

why now? if this was a principal usage, in 2012, and it's now 2021, what triggered this? >> very good question. so, the property owner had a tenant that was seeking to occupy the space. as a non pdr use. and they were in lease negotiations and it was a valuable lease and unfortunately that lease was lost because the l.o.d. was released and the l.o.d. said that because the office upstairs is considered to be accessory and not principal, that you have more than 5,000 square feet of pdr and prop x is triggered. under prop x you need to re pace .75 square feet and this almost never happens as a practical matter. what it does it forces people to look for another space to convert it to pdr use because you are not allowed to use the existing space and convert it to

pdr. so what prop x does, if you are over the 5,000 square foot threshold it effective low just locks you into pdr use. >> i think that was the idea and i believe that was supervisor jane kim that initiated that way back in the day. so, your client occupied this property up until when? >> our client has owned this property for a long time. i would be speculating to guess for how long. i think it's been probably more than 20 years. >> is it vacant now and how long has it been vacant? >> it's been vacant, i believe, for about three years but i would need to confirm that. >> thank you, councilor. >> we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez. i'll be brief and i think i really echo some of the comments that commissioner swig had. i think it's how the zoning

administrator was looking at this is that the office use was really the integral part of the underlying pdr use of the charles chocolate use. and the zoning administrator did careful low consider this. it's not similar to other pdr uses where there's a small amount of accessory office space and so it's pretty characteristic to have that office space. it's more unusual a use like this would have separate independent primary office space. that's the characteristic that we don't see, they don't usually, especially if they're within a third of the floor area they won't come in and seek a permit to establish a separate principal office use. most uses are trying to get their office to within a third so that they could be accessory office. you know, the zoning administrator did consider all these facts and i believe properly made this determination

and did not air or abuse their discretion when making this determine nation and i'm open for questions. >> commission swig. >> so, counselor was very sure on his position that oh, of course, everybody knew that it was non accessory office. you are (inaudible) you are not quite as sure as he was that that is an assumption. >> i think our assumption this is accessory office. that is the most typical characteristics when we have a underlying use that has a very small component of office that office is accessory and they're not seeking it as a separate principal use. so my opinion is different from the appellants in terms of what the a parent nature of the use would be. >> if we go in the direction of

what counselor is trying to get us to believe, what this really flies in the face of why the legislation was provided in the first place. and i do know this to be true and this is a question. was it not the intention of the legislation to protect pdr space and so with pdr space, you must have an office in support of the business that is done in that pdr space? if you do what counselor is advocating and not link the two together, not link the pdr space with the accessory office, then, you are not protecting important

pdr business occupancy which was the intent of the legislation, correct? >> yes. this was approved as, you know, 6,408 square feet of catering use. of that there was 1,827 square feet of office that was accessory that served that primary pdr use and that is more than 5,000 square feet so it's subject to prop x. the a pel apartment would arguee office is separate so they can remove the pdr. >> and so, i'm trying to remember about two years ago, we had president ryan and a soft care company i believe it mor

pdr space into an office and we had the same discussion that they had reached their rights or they had gone beyond their rights to occupy that space because it was restricted pdr space with some level of office but they had gone beyond that ratio. is this at all like that? is this in the same spirit? >> i can't recall that space or say if it's the same unfortunately. your memory is better than mine these days. >> i doubt that. counselor, your time is up unless someone has a specific question for you. >> the bottom line, the intention here is that when the letter of determination is all about, it's the intent to

protect pdr space and not to brows there's an office in a pdr building we can't break that office out because then we will destroy the whole concept of having pdr space and has a office space, right? >> i think as i understand, there argument is they want to get it such it's not subject to prop x. it's subverting prop x in my opinion. they're trying to get around it on a technicality of not enough pdr here because we shouldn't count that accessory office so, yes, it's subverting prop x and prop x applies here. >> and it risks the fact that pdr space which is trying to be protected by the legislation would be subject to going away. >> this would be subject to prop x. >> that's what i'm trying to understand.

i appreciate it. thank you. >> you had your hand up earlier many of thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> so commissioners, i would like to start. so, the legislation regarding pdr, it was during a time and at that time if they felt they did not comply to that legislation, that should have been dealt with. it's similar to billboards, when the billboard moratorium came in you apply to submit or your billboard was going to go away. in this particular case, sorry, my dog is in the background. in this particular case, i am

going to agree with the zone administrators and determination and of course, the property owner would like it to be non pdr but there's a reason it was put into place. that's all. any other commissioners would like to chime in? >> go ahead, commissioner. >> i agree with president honda. we undermine the law and the intent of the situation and if the intent was we are just

averting that legislation. i think i just want to acknowledge that given that this issue was such a hot topic in 2012, that it's reasonable to assume that the property owner understood that they had a principal office and you know, did not feel the need to take further action. i think there was a good amount of evidence demonstrated by the appellant's brief that alluded to that or suggested that that was the understanding.

and i think that it's worth at least acknowledging that possibility. it's unfortunate the documentation by staff, by planning department staff is not clear in that if it was principal office, that an nsr was not recorded and especially how hot of a topic and given the permit was issued that documented the use by planning department staff, that they could assume the office was a principal use on the second floor. >> anyone else have a comment?

would anyone like to make a motion? >> i will make a motion. i make a motion to deny the appeal on the grounds that there's been no abuse on behalf of the administrator. >> ok. we have a motion and and the determination was properly issued. on that motion, vice president santacana. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> ok so, that motion car's 5-0 and an appeal is denied. we are now moving on to item number 7. which is the adoption proposed

adoption of the fiscal year 22-'23 board budget. so, alec, can you put it up on the screen? everyone i presume has it before them. i did have a discussion before the meeting with commissioner lazarus and i would like to make a few minor changes to page 7 and 8. in terms of parenthesis around the number. i'll just begin. the city departments must have been two years and it's required by the administrative code and before this deadline, the board must adopt budgets for the next

two fiscal years. fiscal year '22 and '23. i'll going to briefly touch on the overview of the boards' budget structure and update on the current year budget and recommendations for fiscal year '22 and '23. as you all know, our revenue comes primarily from sur charges imposed on permits and they represent 96% of our budget. filing fees for appeals represent 4% of our budget. in terms of our expenditure budget, i'm on slide 4, alex. more than two-thirds about 69% of the board expenditure budget covers salary and fringe benefit expenses and services provided by other departments and rent comprise the next largest portion of the budget. 23%. the remainder is on smaller

items, neighborhood notification, materials and surprise. moving on to slide 5, obviously our appeal volume is significantly down this fiscal year. it's projected to be 43% below the 10-year average and obviously covid-19 has impacted the number of permits that are being issued and therefore the number of appeals being filed and moving onto the next slide. we are running a deficit and just as a refresher, when i first started in 2018, the sur charges were reduced significantly from $25 to $18.5e and planning department sur charges. and the reason for that was because they had a reserved

fund. the controller and because surcharges are supposed to be cost recovery, they're supposed to pay for the expenses of the board, it was controllers office, their vow we were over viewing on surcharges if we had such a big, you know, deferred revenue account. their goal was to reduce that. commissioner swig, do you have a question? i can't hear you. >> i'm going to wait until you complete your presentation. the controller office does a surcharge in april based on the board's operating expenses and the volume of permits they project will be issued. they will make a determination april as to whether or not the surcharges should be increased.

we've had very negligible increases the past couple of years, basically cpi increases so last year in control, the controller office only suggested we had another minor cpi increase and i think they will be changing their strategy this year because our reserve fund will likely be depleted after this fiscal year and we need to reserve -- we need to build that up. one, to provide a buffer pay our expense and do we get money from the general fund and of course, they don't want to do that.

we didn't spend as much money, so there's a savings in terms of 150,000 projected in savings. this is the page i want to change. all the parenthesis on this page should be removed so that it makes more sense that it's not a loss.

it was quite expensive but fortunately since that contract was expiring and the process was arduous to get a new contract out they have a tool that they're letting us use for free and now alex is able to get the addresses themselves. that's a savings of about $20,000. it's revenue expenditures for the second row, third column,

i'd like to remove the parenthesis as suggested by commissioner lazarus and our projected deficit will, if it is this high, then we will not have a reserve fund. i jumped ahead. if we go to slide nine. i did talk about the surcharges and how they need to be increased. so that will be the discussion this year. and then moving along, to page 10, it just talks about proposed budgets. i am proposing that we spend less the next two fiscal years, primarily because of some salary savings and a few other areas and so moving onto the slide 11, it is just the goal to work with the controller's office and try and come up with a good estimate as to what the surcharges should be and the volume of permits so

our operations will continue. that is about it. that was 2014 the surcharges were reduced. was that the year? >> no, 2018. >> 2018. >> i was particularly vocal on this subject. i completely disagreed with row ducing any fees. my point of view was that this is not what you do if you are being fiscally responsible because there are ups and there are downs. just because you are in the ups mode 2 doesn't mean you are in the down mode. so, i would recommend and so i -- you know, the dramatic forshade owing became reality.

i would suggest that you go back to the controller's office and suggest that we reinstate the to what it was in 2018 before the reduction occurred and then add about what would be cpi index from that point forward. and, i think at that, doing that, we will be at a more appropriate fee level than we are now and in fact, if they wouldn't have done it in the first place and we wouldn't be raising the piece in or din

inor dinantly. >> thank you, commission swig. >> i suggest we go back to where it was in the first place and do cpi index increases from that point. that is a simple solution and a reasonable solution. >> commissioner swig, that was actually make fiscal sense and be responsible. we're talking about city government. >> huh. >> 10 years of fantastic business, all wiped clean in one year. isn't that amazing. >> i do want to thank our

director and our former president for putting all the work in and staff for putting this together for us. thank you. >> i had nothing to do with it, it was all julie. [laughter] >> and her staff. >> i lost all your money, that's why we don't have any. >> no. >> you are fired! >> i'm not taking the blame, i'm sorry. >> we shouldn't have a problem, you are not sending out briefs and we don't have dinner anymore. that is loan -- >> that alone. >> and the parking, not to mention the parking. >> nothing. so i mean, you know. but again, thank you staff for everything and if you need my input for anything, julie, give me a call. >> it's a big wake-up call for the controller's office because they're not going to want to give money from the general fund to support our operations and they would have to. >> i think they have much bigger issues. >> i think so too. >> so, i think the surcharges are relatively low when you hear, i think, the planning department.

their surcharges are 1000 plus dollars, i mean maybe they have less action, in any event -- >> weren't advocating some gigantic -- you are absolutely right. the charges were reasonable before they were reduced and then they -- to bring them back would not put a significant burden upon the public in the context of what the charges are for. >> it's a safety net. >> do you need a motion to approve this? >> first, i have to ask if there's public comment and then yeah, i would propose we have a motion to approve as amended with the parenthesis. so, is there any public comments on this item? if so, please raise your hand.

seeing no public comment, this matter is submitted. >> can we move this forward and approve the budget but with the recommendation of the surcharge fee review. and get with a specific advisory or a specific -- >> i'm unclear what you want. there's going to be a review, it happens every april. we shouldn't say a number because they could say it should be more than, for example, $25. you know. >> ok. >> i would move to -- >> i mean i think it's fair to say that surcharges should increase to cover the board's cost. >> that would be my motion to approve the budget with what you just said as a kicker. >> and also, as amended, with the parenthesis on the pages i

indicated. >> exactly. didn't i say that. >> we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the budget for fiscal year 22-23 on the condition it's amended to reflect the removal of some parenthesis on the pages indicated by the executive director with the recommendation the surcharges be increased to cover the board's cost. on that motion vice president santacana. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion carries 5-0. and the budget is adopted. >> thank you, everybody. >> see you in two weeks. >> for a better year. >> yeah. >> absolutely. >> on many levels. >> thank you. >> all right. >> hopefully back in the hearing room at some point.

>> and we'll get sandwiches. >> have a good couple weeks, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president honda, are you adjourning the meeting. >> president honda: oh. >> no? >> he doesn't want to adjourn us. >> andrew furey: yes, we're adjourned. i apologize. >> thank you, everyone have a great night. thank you. >> thank you.

♪ >> it is unclenate's creativity time. welcome to uncle nate. we are are going to draw bubble letters. you need supplies. you need a pencil, markers, something to color with and a few pieces of paper. gather up supplies and meet me back right here. all right. let's go. got all supplies out. draw your name lightly in the center of your page. give yourself room. give each letter a little room. all right. now, i want you to draw around each letter like you are driving a car around each letter.

next, let's erase the center. take away the original outline and then we will be left just with the bubble letter. make sure you get the center part out of there. okay. we will touch it up. time for color. i chose yellow, orange, and red. yellow at the top, then the orange in the center, and i am making a stripe right through the center all the way across. last, my red, which makes a cool fade. time for the outline. unclenate's creative time. figure it out. now we are going to do a drop shadow.

a shadow underneath each letter and to the side. it is really going to give it a 3-d look. wow! great job. i bet you didn't think you could draw that. now you can draw bubble letters you can use it to draw things for your friends, cards. it is really useful. i hope you had a good time. i will see you next time on uncle nate's creativity time. ♪

you may call this meeting to order. >> thank you, donald. good morning. i would like to call the tjpa board of directors meeting of february 11, 2021 to order. i am the vice chair. this is being conducted pursuant to provisions of the brown act. recent executive orders to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission at public meetings. ordinarily, the brown act sets strict rules. the governor's order suspended those rules. as noted the agenda, members of the public may observe this meeting via sfgovtv and they may offer public comment by calling the public comment phone number. i would like to welcome the numbers of the public and staff watching live on sfgovtv. mr. secretary, could you please call the roll today.

>> thank you, prior to calling roll i would like to welcome alisha john baptiste and diane shaw the ac transit representative and chang is setting in and the director has a scheduling conflict and will not be present. please respond when i call your name. >> chang. >> here. >> forbes. >> here. >> john baptiste. >> here. >> lipkin. >> present. >> shaw. >> here. >> tumlin. >> present. >> vice chair gee. >> present. >> we have a quorum. i will call your next item.

>> item 3. communications. we would like to provide further instructions for the public comment. to provide public comment dial to the published number. 18552826330 and enter access code (182)585-8053. pound pound and listen as you wait for public comment to be announced. members of the public have three minutes for each item. i will announce when public comment is open. general public comment callers dial star 3 to be added to the queue. this access code will stream on the screen during the entire board meeting. when callers dial star 3 they will be added in the order entered. all callers remain on mute until the line is open. the automated voice will let

callers know when to speak. it is best to call from quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down the radio or television. any communications from board members at this time? >> there are no hands raised. >> i will proceed. directors, item 4 board of director's new and old business. >> i do not see hands raised. >> item 5. executive director's report. >> good morning, directors.

i would like to welcome the new board members. i look forward to working with both of you as we execute the initiatives and add vance the downtown rail extension. i want to thank director hirsh on delivering the important transit services. last month we welcomed president joe biden and vice president harris. we are excited for the new administration. our project will receive funding over the next few years. we are excited for the new transportation secretary. a few local represents from this area. we continue to monitor federal stimulus package as it may beings the way through the

legislature. we are optimistic the $1.7 billion in funding will keep the bay area transit expansion and modernization projects on track. we join the metropolitan transportation commission and other operators in cosigning our congressional delegation in support. we are in correspondence with m.t.c. to include the tjpa in the funding. as we deal with the pandemic we are optimistic. we are working to provide outdoor services to respond to the order. we continue to monitor the stay safe at home for collective efforts to reduce the spread of covid-19.

adhering to the guidance and working with our transit operators. we continue to provide commuters and visitors the most up-to-date information about mask wearing and fiscal distancing ensuring hands cleaning protocols are in place. as rollout of vaccines occur we are working with redevelopment ventures to plan for and help ensure we are ready for increased activation when it is safe. we hope it is sometime this fall. earlier this week we hosted sales force for their kickoff. though showcased our rooftop art through the international audience including 50,000 employees and global partners. they expect these to be broadcast to 10 million viewers. we continue to make progress on the advancement of the project with the steering committee

partners including funding plan strategy, travel forecasting and ridership modeling. together with the staff we have been reaching local partners. we went with region 9 administrator and his local to reintroduce the project. we appreciated feedback to prepare the project for the program. we work closely with them to ensure the project development this fall and complete the process within the two year requirement. also, we are scheduling the commissioners to provide briefings in the upcoming months. we are excited for launch of the project in the powers authority. we realize the connection to the east bay. we are working to plan for and build a seem less connection for the future integrated transportation system.

we also sept m.t.c. a letter in response to 2050 five year implementation plan and asked them for resolution project and ensure they receive continued funding from local and regional measures to ensure the transbay program is built. early this week rail authority issued the revised draft business plan 2020 for public review and comment until march 12th. we join the high-speed rail authority the future operating partner in commitment to delivering passenger rail service to the state. the significant impact of covid-19. it prioritizes environmental clearance of phase one between san francisco and the transit center and los angeles. we will be tracking and monitoring the plan through the legislature in april and authority's request to release

state bond funding to continue the construction. we support the authority plan and request for state bond funds. lastly, directors, the cac recruitment continues. we encourage anyone to apply for this opportunity and applications are due february 26th. that concludes my report. i will take any questions. we have john here. >> thank you director. any questions on the report this morning? i am not seeing any hands raised. thank you for the report. >> thank you. good morning, directors. i will bring up the slides.

as mentioned. we are continuing to provide the intense high touch area cleaning throughout the center while also deploying the minimum amount of consultant resourcesness as part of cost reduction measures to balance our operating budget going forward. additionally, we have been working with fitness sf on outdoor space. they continue discussions with the city attorney's office as well as the department of public health to move into indoor

operations that may being economic sense for them. in the meantime they continue without door footprint. we are happy to accommodate them on the left part of the top photo. as mentioned, we have been hosting sales force virtual event culminating in live stream event two days ago that wrapped up the show. the generator on the other side in the picture, the tent located below for catering. the next slide is better perspective on howna toma was used so we can see the fitness activities there. there has been a line waiting to get in anytime i have looked during operating hours. it is great to see that they are getting membership expansion through this expanded outdoor

pod. another activity ongoing discussions with our neighbors to the south at 181 fremont, j paul, working to fastate a number of things underway. one is window washing. that is boring but when you have a high rise that butts against our facility it is a challenge. we have worked with them. the license agreement to facilitate the three week affair for window washing. they also have window repairs that need to be affected above the 40th story. there are minor bridge deck repairs that started yesterday. that work is ongoing. minimal impact to the facility. the highest impact issue is the window repair where we have to have a fall protection area in case of mishap.

that will involve a partial closure of the pedestrian path on park. you can see that on the facade depending on weather conditions. the park activities. we did have a holiday lights extension so that was through january. those lights have been removed just before sales force mobilized for their virtual event. it was a two location event on a live stream from two days ago. we let off here at sales force park followed by the chairman presenting from singapore. latest check on website indicates estimate over 8 million views. that is the world wide exposure

we received by facilitating this event with our partners. also, we can see the covid-19 check in area. to get to their area within the amphitheater required a tje; check and some protocols. we made sure that everyone was safe in moving forward working closely with the department of public health and city of san francisco. retail leasing. we have a number of active engagement to continue to negotiate food and beverage kiosk moving nicely. lease negotiations continue, not complete but getting there. suite 232 in the green off beal street side. those discussions are going well. the key point here is while there is a lot of gloom and doom

in the media relative to retail and particularly downtown san francisco, we continue to have active interest to the point where frankly we only have two first floor suites that aren't in active discussions. only have transactions ready to present town. i am encouraged there is that level of expect in our facility at this time. they recognize the value we will bring when things begin to return. we will have more information on that as these transactions get closer to fruition. this shows you the details. no change from the last meeting in terms of occupancy rate just under 80%. successful in these pending negotiations that number will change by the end of spring. that is my hope. improvements. this slide will look familiar.

verizon express is open. kaiser has completed work. they have occupancy permit from d.b.i. and are ready to go. looking at target of may 2021 for opening to coincide with downtown with the unit that cannot be found elsewhere in the system. we have more on that as they share what they anticipate the operations and service system available from kaiser. across the hall from tjpa on beal street side is the spring fertility suite. they have made great progress. they have moved in furniture. this awaits the permit for them to begin occupancy. commencement started last year

they are targeting the end of this month or more likely early march based on intelligence from d.b.i. apstatus of permits. this is a quick rundown every maining tenancies. 11 begins commencement yesterday. they are one of the first to open given their relatively limited tenant improvement package. our building effort moving nicely. we expect quite a lot of material delivery for the kitchen exhaust project to come toward the tail end of this month and early march to dovetail nicely with the anticipated q3 and on the next slide q4 openings. we are trying to marry our delivery of the spaces with hope for return of downtown tenants and office occupants and

patrons. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> john, thank you for the report. directors, any questions for mr? i don't see any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary i think we can move to the next item. >> item 6. cac update. we have the cac chair to address you on this item. >> good morning, directors. i am derek holt. we had a citizen advisory meeting this past tuesday. we welcomed the new role for donald and he will be outstanding. we will walk through the staff

report including the efforts to ensure the projects are in federal and state transportation funding, global exposure with the global broadcasting coverage, regional transportation project week 21 development. several cap members are turning out in recruiting efforts underway. i want to thank those members turning out for sacrifice of time and contribution of ideas and questions in an effort to make this transportation project one of the best in the world and feed the needs of the community. the meetings were pleased with answers to the question to connect transit center dynamics to regional partners. that link 21 is appreciated by the cac members. comments and questions address the mega transformative rail program objectives, capital

corridor elements and connection to the transit center. there was a great deal of interest from members in the community in elements such as potential for new transbay crossing and benefits to the citizens, requirement the quality of life and transportation in general. we appreciate the contributions to the cord nations between link 21 and sales force. there were questions on the lines on the map that spoke to different rail routes. i do note there is cap interest in reviewing topics regarding track alignment, how developed, constructive ideas for alternatives. i noped the presentation from link 21 asked for ideas and suggestions from cac members and the public. i thought that was great. members of the cac such as paul

and howard and bob and members of the public should ask questions regarding speeding up the timeline of moving forward on the construction and completion, track alignment. safety of buildings and consideration of big picture ideas to incorporate to the transportation plans. some of the big pictures included expanding ferry service, impact of autonomous vehicles and impact of covid. we loved s.f.c.t.a. in the presentation by jessie. it covered the valley to valley service and more. questions from danville and others involved around identifying the inputs for modeling, impact of covid, identifying the targets for

number of transit hours connected with the transit center and key hubs. they were well received. of course, we always want to understand what is going on inside the transit center. john updike, thank you for the facilities update. members suggested using the wi-fi in the rooftop park for k-12 student classroom activities. interesting idea or adult classes or academic activities. we have done a little bit of that already. i will wrap up pie pointing out future agenda item requests include rail yard updates and budget forecast updates which executive director gonzalez will provide with the help of our esteemed cfo in the near future. in conjunction with working on new cac members we acknowledge

that it is difficult during covid to offer the tour. based on discussions with executive director gonzalez we will develop an update review of all key things and share the virtual tour with new and old members. this will be part of our efforts to get new members up to speed on all things transit center related. this concludes my report. >> thank you for your report. directors, any questions? mr. hall. i do not see any hands raised. thank you for your report. thank you to the members for finishing the terms on the cac. it is a service, a passion. it is a commitment. i appreciate it and the board does appreciate it.

please pass along our appreciation. have a good day. mr. secretary. >> yes, this is informational appears a them member of the public raised their hand. please let in the caller. please state your name. you have three minutes. >> good morning. the only thing i would like to add to the report is that it was very over debt during the -- overvi debt that -- evident it has a profound impact on the second street alignment. thank you.

any other callers? >> that appears to be the only member of the public to provide comment. i will call the next item. >> director's 7 is public comment. opportunity for members of the public to address the authority on matters not on today's calendar. it appears we have a member that wishes to address you. first caller. >> hi, jim patrick, patrick and company. i would like to follow up row land's comment. he is a engineer, i am not. he has a bright idea of the alignment for second street.

everyone discards it because we have done environmental impact report and can't look anywhere else. i believe that is short sighted. there is a lot of money to be saved, in the billions, there is a lot of gains from his idea. i would like to ask this board to solace it is a presentation from roland as to what he thinks a better idea is instead of sweeping this under the table. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. any additional speakers? >> that was the last member of the public. next item. >> before you call the next item, let me also offer my welcome to director john baptiste and director shaw. you are coming on board at a great time to look at what is next with the downtown

extension. i want to offer my appreciation to director hirsch for his time. it is a partnership and i value and appreciate his presence on tjpa. to our new directors, welcome. >> item 8. approving updated board policy no. 001. the chief financial officer will present. >> thank you. i have a request to approve updates to the policy. we are trying to implement updates based on federal guidance to allow for micro purchases and large purchases to be increased from $3,000 to

$10,000 and large purchases up to $110,000. the federal guidancal laws up to 250. we felt we should limit to keep in line with the city and county of san francisco administrative policies and the boards and agencies you all represent. additionally, we wanted to update the policy to include affirmative statements on prohibiting communications during r.f.p.s and affirmative statement on prohibiting collusion in contracting. these two updates come as a result of a report issued by the city and county of san francisco controller's office on public integrity review. we felt these updates were timely and pertinent to our affairs and wanted to recommend these updates. i will take any questions if you have them.

>> thank you. any comments or questions from directors? >> i would like to move the item, please. >> that was director lipkin. second? >> second tumlin. >> motion and second. any other questions or comments? >> lipkin and tumlin. now roll call vote. director chang. >> it is advisable to see if there are members of the public to comment. >> thank you, ms. miller. >> apologies. >> there are no members of the public to address you on this item. i will proceed to roll call. >> director chang. >> aye.

>> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> aye. >> tumlin. >> aye. >> vichair gee. >> aye. >> there are seven ayes and item 8 is approved. >> thank you, mr. secretary. before you call item 9. i would like to let the board and public know i will recuse myself from item 9. in abundance of caution to avoid perceptions of a conflict as i am the appointee of the jpb. i would like to at this point ask that director tumlin handle this item. i will go dark on my video and

rejoin when this item is concluded. >> i would be happy to take the gavel. >> thank you, director tumlin. >> thank you. i will go ahead and call the next item. >> 9. approving the interim executive director to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the joint powers board for operations analysis for amount not to exceed $185,000 in support of the downtown rail extension phasing study as required in the memorandum of inning and interim project director will present. >> thank you. good morning, directors.

the purpose of the request here is to authorize interval executive director to execute moa with joint powers and provide funding in support of operations analysis to complete the phasing study. cost for this would be shared with the socta with tjpa contributing $185,000, and $75,000 for the total cost. need is related to some of the phasing concepts that were proposed and developed by such as the two versus three track. deferral of high-speed rail that requires analysis, operational analysis not previously available. the way to conduct this work is using caltrain and high-speed rail existing operations

consultant. we feel it is an efficient way to conduct this work. the scope of work is to run various service level to simulate the level and associated infrastructure improvements ranging from relatively minimal service of six trains per hour and no high-speed rail trains all the way up to eight caltrain trains and four high-speed rail trains. the scope of work including the simulation of regoperations to determine reliability and flexibility but also disruption operations to determine what reliable the service is in terms of recovery should a train be out of service for some reason or other delay. this is an important way to look at operations pause delays occur from time to time. we will simulate as well a run

through operation at sales force transit center envisioning for example a future link 21 connection the east bay and determine if that connection in some way reduces infra structure requirement to share that information with the executive steers committee as we bring the phasing report to tjpa board with you the directors. the source of funds for this request is unexspended funds from the cta grants 1-5-914-028. with that that completes my report. i am happy to answer any questions the directors may have. thank you. >> any questions or discussion? >> i just wanted to appreciate the teamanticlar caltrain and

high-speed rail task who are the lead under the work program. it has worked out well. the consultant is on knowledgeable already about the operations. thank you. >> any further questions or discussion? seeing none. do we have public comment? >> seeing none as well. is there a motion? >> i move. >> second. >> first chang and second forbes. will i call roll. >> director chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste.

>> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> director shaw. >> aye tumlin. >> aye. >> there are six ayes and zero nays. item nine is approved. i would like to note as we were calling roll a member of the public raised their hand to provide a comment. if it is okay with you, i will let that member of the public in. >> i will allow the comment. >> please let in the caller. >> thank you. san jose. i would like to briefly take an opportunity of echoing some of the metrics that i shared with the cac for this exercise.

specifically, to establish specific targets because we can get away with six trains and worry later. it is ridiculous. the target as follows: the target is 12 trains in the amount of transit center with two tracks, not three tracks. with 21 your target is 30 trains in and out of the transit center every hour. if the simulation indicates that this is not possible, i respectfully suggest that you start looking at different alignments, similar to the alignment that london uses for the olympics. that is how they got 12 trains an hour in and out.

also, i suggest it is impossible to get 30 trains an hour up and down the peninsula. we need the scope of the simulation to additional track work in brisbon south of the bayshore station. in closing i will make it very clear especially to the san francisco transportation authority that unless these targets are met, caltrain will never ever be able to if fourth and king. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public. i will call the next item. >> i will hand the gavel back to acting chair gee. >> thank you, director tumlin,

appreciate the assist. >> directors, item 10. approving the minutes of the january 14, 2021 meeting. >> is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second lipkin. >> no members of the public to address you on this. first tumlin and second lipkin. i will proceed to call the roll. >> chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> abstain. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> abstain.

>> tumlin. >> aye. >> vice chair gee. >> aye. >> there are five eyes and two abstains. item 10 is approved. >> thank you. go ahead and call the next item. item 11 is san francisco peninsula rail program executive steering committee update. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to provide the monthly update on our work at the integrated project team. high level of outline. i will take a few minutes to briefly update you on activities listed here. it remains a very, very busy time for the whole team we

appreciate guidance of the board through this period. in terms of the funding man as the interim director gonzalez mentioned. this is the 2016 funding map to update the existing sources, committed once as well as newer ones, working with funding partners we confirm the forecast of funding sources such as the tax increment revenues and evaluating the sd1 gas tax funded programs we have applied in the past and will apply for the transit inner city rail program and the solutions for congested corridors and other relevant programs at the state level. city has the agency working on the pricing study. should that be approved that is

a potential source as well. there are recently passed or planned revenue measures to consider as well. in addition we are reevaluating the fta federal transit administration resource funding. i will come back. we had a productive conversation with the region nine office as interim director mentioned. there is potential for private participation in creative financing which we will be exploring. near term the jtpa and the staff are working to seek an amendment to the prop k allocation the transportation authority approved last year to update and align the activities with the work plan that you adopted in december. this is going to reflect potential acceleration of the project schedule to see if we can make earlier submittal to the federal government on the restarts program. it showed august 2024 submittal.

we are exploring to move that up to august of 2023 as i reported last month. this is a once in a year submittal window. that is a important decision all partners and you will be making. if approved, the prop k funds would support the team's work through the end of this year including approval of the operating project definition. that is key this fall. we would also need additional funds to comment the prop k funds by other sources going to 2022 and 2023. i will note that is the current focus of the work with the partners. we are discussing this as well so we can present that to apply for the entry to the federal program to fta. as the interim director reported that was a successful meeting february 4th with the administrator. several members of the staff

joined the virtual meeting to provide encouraging feedback as well as helpful guidance to the people. we were introduced to the entire rile ma'am partnership with importance of the multi agency collaboration and we reviewed the purpose and status of the phase-in study and importance of looking to see how we can make that strategic decision about balancing cost savings with other factors and criteria. we further introduced the ridership modeling task. it covered the different aspects of those technical decisions. also the capacity of the fta program. again, administratortulelis and members of his staff were very supportive and ledge pledged -- pledged to guide us for entering the federal process this fall.

we appreciate fta administratortule lisa's signed a member of his staff for this work. on the ridership forecasting that is a very important activity right now early leading item to establish the benefits and really understand the scenarios that will be evaluated as the last caller mentioned. sfta's modeling team is reviewing the forecasting scenarios and input with s m.t.c. we want to be consistent with 2050 and regional assumptions as well as the operating agencies who all have their own business plans and forecasts as well as high-speed rail authorities models. we are working together very closely right now. there has been some discussion about not only this project but no project that we are picking

up fta guidance and m.t.c. treatment of key assumptions during this difficult period in near term but moving forward establishing what the future demand profiles will look like as we enter the evaluation of investment through 2035. consistent with the blue print from the planned bay area we will ensure there is a wide regional look at the potential benefits including integration across the bay. as mentioned before by steven, the team continues to analyze the options to identify cost reductions for the operating project. mindful of the trade-offs. we will bring that to you in coming months. thank you for approving the funding for operations analysis to support the team's work. turning to the planning benefit

assessment. in addition to demand forecasting we have a business case analysis. last week bart and capital corridors link 21 vision did include analysis by the bay area council economic institute which published report estimating broad and significant benefits of the potential regional program featuring the crossing across the bay connecting to the other sales force train box. similarly, we will prepare a business case as well under the tpa for the lead for that task supported by partners for mobility and cost-effective and congestion and greenhouse gas reductions affords ability and economic development affects. we will bring that to you as we scope and develop the analysis through the executive steering

committee. it will be a companion to the recommendation in the fall when we come to the conclusions for the initial operating phase analysis. we do expect to see similar results to the bay area council institute 21 analysis with robust economic benefits of the whole rail program including transbay crossing. we will collaborate with connections to the centers which we examined at high level and shared connections with the link 21 team as chair holt mentioned earlier presented to the cac recently. these links will be further developed by the bart and capital corridor team through the next phases of their study. turning to the outreach engagement. our team has made presentations to multiple groups including cac chair and i will note regarding

21 interested members of the public are invited to participate in the survey located at survey.link 21 program. org/goals. that is a way to express your feedback to bart and capital corridor. the tdp team commenced work to update the project website and outreach materials to subpoena -- support other briefings planned such as commissioners and this will continue the outreach as done with caltran senior officials as well as state legislators earlier last year. finally, i was pleased to speak about the recent symposium to prepare for the biden infrastructure and climate plan hosted by the foundation on economy and environment. speakers included the u.s.

transition team chair washington, m.t.c. executive director and acting administrator, high-speed rail authority director kelly and private industry leaders. we discussed innovations and opportunities for public private collaboration in projects. there is high private sector interest in projects well defined and supported by local sponsors. we will conduct markets as we study various delivery methods to support the project. we are prayer pairing input to -- preparing input to congress as they bring up the bill in the coming weeks and months. we hope that bill will be taken up by the middle of this year. we are getting ready to provide

input at that time. thank you. i will take questions. >> thank you for that update. directors, any questions of director chang and the esc team? >> i don't see any hands raised. mr. secretary do you see any hands raised? >> i do not. >> any public comment at this time? >> there are none. >> quick question. thank you for your hard work. i am sorry. >> a member of the public raised their hand. >> first caller. >> thank you. this is roland. there is something seriously

wrong with picking up requests to speak from the public. i really want to thank director chang for her report. the only be thing i would add is that the new bart project manager is watry. he correctly identifies the only viable alignment that they are working on the last four years. i would like to remind you if you were on the board at the time. the reason we have to stop working on that alignment we lost the powers alignment when the tjpa sold block five which is where the tower is.

mr. waltry defined pretty much the issues caused by this pushing the transbay crossing into the bay. i really hope we continue to work with him and come up with solutions that are going to push these platforms back to where they were to be in the first place in the middle of the train box. it means that there will be no train box extension. that is where the east bay goes. thank you. >> thank you. any other public speakers? >> no. that was the only member of the public. >> thank you for the update. i know this was ambitious work plan. a lot of work is being done. i want the check is the work plan on schedule? >> it is by and large on

schedule. that is the subject of the prop k amendment to reflect the changes in the work plan itself that was adopted by this board. there is a lot to view. there is risk. we are asking to track that. in fact we have an item at the meeting this month to review. we can provide better update next month on the potential schedule impacts. >> i think you and your team with the esc work plan was presented in december had a big schedule that went with it. would it be reasonable to ask that be updated in the six month mark? >> absolutely, director gee. if the action of the director chang spoke about is approved we would come back to you for approval of the accelerated schedule. >> thank you.

i don't want to add any more work but it is important to know you are on schedule and add adjustments are being made to manage the expectations. >> we are on schedule. i will come back with more detailed presentation. >> very good. thank you for the hard work. >> any other questions from directors? seeing none, mr. secretary, let's keep moving. >> at this time you are scheduled to go into closed session. as i check to see if there are any members of the public. i have not received any indication members of the public wish to address you. they have an opportunity to do so at this time. >> we will hang out to see if the system identifies anyone that wants to make a comment. >> yes.

anybody raise their hand yet. >> no, sir. >> okay. ms. miller, do we expect any action out of this closed session so the public doesn't need to hang out? >> i am not anticipating there would be any. >> thank you. seeing no public commenters wanting to speak to the board about this we are ready to go to closed session. >> thank you, vice chair gee. i will put us

>> the market is one of our vehicles for reaching out to public and showing them how to prepare delicious, simple food. people are amazed that the library does things like that. biblio bistro is a food education program. it brings such joy to people. it teaches them life skills

that they can apply anywhere, and it encourages them to take care of themselves. my name is leaf hillman, and i'm a librarian, and biblio bistro is my creation. i'm a former chef, and i have been incubating this idea for many years. we are challenged to come up with an idea that will move the library into the future. this inspired me to think, what can we do around cooking? what can i do around cooking? we were able to get a cart. the charlie cart is designed to bring cooking to students in elementary students that has enough gear on it to teach 30 students cooking. so when i saw that, i thought bingo, that's what we're missing. you can do cooking classes in

the library, but without a kitchen, it's difficult. to have everything contained on wheels, that's it. i do cooking demonstrations out at the market every third wednesday. i feature a seafood, vegetable, and i show people how to cook the vegetable. >> a lot of our residents live in s.r.o.s, single resident occupancies, and they don't have access to full kitchens. you know, a lot of them just have a hot plate, a microwave, and the thing that biblio bistro does really well is cook food accessible in season and make it available that day. >> we handout brochures with the featured recipe on the back. this recipe features mushrooms, and this brochure will bring

our public back to the library. >> libraries are about a good time. >> i hired a former chef. she's the tickle queen at the ramen shop in rockwood. we get all ages. we get adults and grandparents and babies, and, you know, school-age kids, and it's just been super terrific. >> i was a bit reluctant because i train teachers and adults. i don't train children. i don't work with children, and i find it very interesting and a bit scary, but working here really taught me a lot, you know, how easily you can influence by just showing them what we have, and it's not threatening, and it's tasty and fun. i make it really fun with kids

because i don't look like a teacher. >> in the mix, which is our team center, we have programs for our kids who are age 13 to 18, and those are very hands on. the kids often design the menu. all of our programs are very interactive. >> today, we made pasta and garlic bread and some sauce. usually, i don't like bell pepper in my sauce, but i used bell pepper in my sauce, and it complemented the sauce really well. i also grated the garlic on my bread. i never thought about that technique before, but i did it, and it was so delicious. >> we try to teach them techniques where they can go

home and tell their families, i made this thing today, and it was so delicious. >> they're kind of addicted to these foods, these processed foods, like many people are. i feel like we have to do what we can to educate people about that. the reality is we have to live in a world that has a lot of choices that aren't necessarily good for you all the time. >> this is interesting, but it's a reaction to how children are brought up. it is fast-food, and the apple is a fast-food, and so that sort of changes the way they think about convenience, how eating apple is convenient. >> one of the things that i love about my program out at the market is the surprise and delight on people's faces when they finally taste the vegetable. it's been transformative for some people. they had never eaten those vegetables before, but now,

they eat them on a regular basis. >> all they require is a hot plate and a saute pan, and they realize that they're able to cook really healthy, and it's also tasty. >> they also understand the importance of the connection that we're making. these are our small business owners that are growing our food and bringing it fresh to the market for them to consume, and then, i'm helping them consume it by teaching them how to cook. >> it connects people to the food that they're buying. >> the magic of the classes in the children's center and the team center is that the participants are cooking the food themselves, and once they do that, they understand their connection to the food, to the tools, and it empowers them. >> we're brokering new experiences for them, so that is very much what's happening in the biblio bistro program.

>> we are introducing kids many times to new vocabulary. names of seasonings, names of vegetables, names of what you call procedures. >> i had my little cooking experience. all i cooked back then was grilled cheese and scrambled eggs. now, i can actually cook curry and a few different thing zblz . >> and the parents are amazed that what we're showing them to cook is simple and inexpensive. i didn't know this was so easy to make. i've only bought it in the market. those comments have been amazing, and yeah, it's been really wonderful. >> we try to approach everything here with a well,

just try it. just try it once, and then, before you know it, it's gone. >> a lot of people aren't sure how to cook cauliflower or kale or fennel or whatever it is, and leah is really helpful at doing that. >> i think having someone actually teaching you here is a great experience. and it's the art of making a meal for your family members and hope that they like it. >> i think they should come and have some good food, good produce that is healthy and actually very delicious. >> cooking is one of my biggest passions, to be able to share, like, my passion with others,

>> van ness avenue runs from market street to bay street in san francisco. south vanness runs from south of market to cesar chavez street. originally residential after the 1906 earthquake it was used as a fire break. many car dealerships and businesses exist on vanness today with expansion of bus lanes. originally marlet street was named after james vanness, seventh mayor of san francisco from 1855 to 1856. vanness heavy are streets in santa cruz, los angeles and fresno in his honor. in 1915 streetcars started the opening of the expo. in 1950s it was removed and replaced by a tree-lined median. it was part