enter the webinar id (841)656-0323. this is being broadcast and streamed across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the broadcast.

to block your phone number when calling dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for your item to be called and dial star nine equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in and have three minutes. you will get a 30 second warning. there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on the internet. it is very important that you reduce or turnoff the volume or there is interference with the meeting. if the participants on zoom need disability accommodation you can make request in chat function to the legal assistant or send an e-mail to board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear and affirm all of those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without an oath pursuant

to the rights under the nine ordinance. if you intend to test drive the proceedings and wish to give testimony raise your right hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. if you are a participant abnot t speaking put your speaker on mute. if you are here for apple 21-010 concerning the notice of violation at 2455 jackson this is the item that is rescheduled to may 5, 2021. if you are here for that matter it will be heard in two weeks at 5:00. you can get information on the website how to access that meeting. now we are moving on to item 1.

this is general public comment. an opportunity for anyone to speak on a matter within the board jurisdiction not on the calendar. any member of the public wishing to speak on an item not on the calendar. please raise your hand. okay. i don't see anybody. we are going to move on to item 2. election of the office of vice president. the vice president resigned. we need to fill that position. any members of the board to nominate a colleague or themselves for office of vice president? i see two hands raised. >> commissioner lazarus had her hand up first. >> i would like to nominate commissioner swig as the next vice president. >> okay. >> since i don't get to make that i will second the motion.

>> okay. is there any public comment on this motion? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any public comment. let me check. commissioner swig are you willing to serve as vice president? >> i would be pleased and honored to serve. thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to elect commissioner swig as vice president. president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> okay. that motion carries 4-0. congratulations. >> he has to play the drums behind him. >> okay. we are now moving on. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it very much. >> item 3 commissioner comments

and questions. we don't have any. we will move to item 4. adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion are the minutes of the april 14, 2021 meeting. >> motion to accept. >> is there any public comment on the motion to adopt those minutes? seeing none that motion commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion carries. 4-0. the minutes are adopted. >> the attorney for the appellant informed me she is not asking for continuance. >> thank you. we are going to move on to item

5. appeal number 21-015. noel frelicot. at 24/7 2 vallejo street appeals of an alteration permit. kitchen and bath remodel. remove one set of convenience stairs, fully infill small remainder of light well by connecting pre-existing firewalls. we will hear from the appellant first. i believe ms. christ is here. welcome. we can't hear you. >> thank you. i am hoping i have capability to share screens.

i am going to try to do that. >> i won't start the time until you get your screen up. good evening, i am an attorney at hansen and bridgett here today on behalf of noel frelicot. they reside at 2466 vallejo street next door to the permit holder. they are also online this evening. i want to first provide a brief overview of the properties. they are side-by-side buildings. the applicant's property is on the left. the building is on the right. there is a shared light well between them on the second and third floors. you can see it here in this

aerial. it is shown here between the two buildings. it is right here. the permit is for internal remodel. our appeal is focused on the infilling of the shared light well between the buildings. i want to point out the plans that were included with the applicant's brief are from a 2017 believe permit to legalize the rear addition. they are not relevant to the permit before you. plans for the permit at issue we received a copy yesterday. those show on sheet a-1 as well the shared light well between the two buildings. the issue is just procedural because the proposed infill faces our client's light well with windows.

section 311 notification should have been given to our clients. it is not only shared light well. there are three windows facing the proposed infill. not blank wall and that is not shown on the plans submitted for this permit. the rules are clear that section 311 notification is required for any building permit that increases exterior dimensions of the building. bulletin four provides exception for infilling windows. that exception states if the plans number two accompanying photos clearly establish it is against a blank wall at the property line and not havessible from -- visible from outside it may be approved.

default is provide notice. to bypass the plans have to show infill against the blank neighboring wall not havessible from off-site location. here the plans don't show the neighboring wall facing the infill area and the fact it has windows facing it. of course, because there are windows it is visible from off-site from our clients' property. while staff may have considered the proposed wall would have minimal effect as practical matter, as legal matter the noticing was still required. this is the sheet that shows our clients' building. a5. that doesn't really show. it says opening to neighbor but doesn't show there is windows on

the wall on the other side of that. we understand because there is an existing deck above and wall partial wall that comes down filling in the opening may not have significant impact on our clients' light and air, but nonetheless that determination can't be made in order to disregard the noticing requirement. here our clients perceive an impact on light and air. they are entitled to have an opportunity to evaluate what those impacts might be and provide input. they were deprived of that opportunity. to the picture that shows the actual light well area. they also have concerns about access to the area and a drain that is located in their light well. on the left is our clients' property. on the right is the permit holders' property.

this is the deck above unpermitted and wall unpermitted. to some extent infilling this wall we still would perceive an impact in terms of light and air to these windows but certainly to the extent it is relying on these two other components. one significant piece of information not available to the planner is the fact those components are not permitted. just this week we obtained preliminary drawings that labeled deck and wall unpermitted and our clients present tonight were advised by the tenant of that unit he built the deck and wall in the 1990s without a permit. i believe he is online and able to confirm that. our clients who purchased the property in 1994 were not aware

they were not permitted until this week. taking that into consideration if this goes forward it would allow incremental filling of the large light well shared with the neighboring property owner without any notice or opportunity to consider things like design modifications to minimize impacts or otherwise confirm that it would be consistent with residential design guidelines. that is the substance of the procedural issue is 311 noticing. that procedure allows some evaluation of the potential impacts. there is a residential design guideline that clearly states one guideline is to provide shared light wells to provide more light to the properties. all of those components would be needed to fill in the light well. our request tonight is simply the city follow proper procedures, issue 311 notice for

the permit, and allow our clients an opportunity to take closer look. we believe the permit to infill the light well was erroneously issued without complete information. we would respectfully grant you grant the minimum allow the period and possibly -- >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> i see a hand raised as attendee. we are not on public comment. we will get there after we hear from the permit holder and the department. we will now hear from the permit holder, ms. hu. >> welcome. >> hello. i am evelyn hu and this is my

husband. we are the recent owners of 24/7 2 vallejo street. we purchased the property two months ago. there is a whole history of issues of the building currently cleaned up. we are still in the process of cleaning up some of those things. i wanted to address a couple of things that just came up an hour before this hearing. she alluded to a set of plans that referred to the light well area specifically the deck and the stairs as unpermitted. i had a conversation with sanchez an hour ago where i was given notice of this. i just called my drafter. it appears there was a plan set prepared for conversation with our tenant referring to the fact

that the deck that he enjoys currently that i believe he enjoys by himself exclusively we are permitting to be a private deck for him. the landlord tenant attorney wanted to specify between a space that did not be long to the tenanted before to a space that was permitted to him. this language of permitted not permitted refers to the top floor of the community the tenant lived this is now inclusive and fully permitted to include that deck space as private and exclusive use. now the thing that is actually concerns is this was not a submitted plan set for the city permitting purposes.

not a version that was superseded. it was there for visualization purposes. it never happened because he is not wanting to talk to us. that conversation has not happened. that was located in a drawer in our unit on the ground floor which is locked. if the tenant -- if the appellant is in possession of that plan set that would mean they broke into our unit and stole the plan set. i find that extremely distressing and it fits within the pattern of behavior that we have seen and the fact that i am not sure when they broke in and stole the plan set. we are just finding out about it an hour before the hearing. >> could you pause time for a

second. i want to make a comment you have seven minutes to present your days. however you present your days is your choice. at this point you are using a lot of your time. we have to make a decision off what is represented this evening. i want to give you that guidance before you continue. >> so let's move forward with our presentation. this is the visualization of the permitted scope. the area in contest right now is the install of the light well this 6-foot tall 10-foot wide area a gap in the firewall. there is a firewall on the third floor and on the ground floor. we are connecting those disjointed firewalls to have a

continuous firewall. before i leave that page the resulting outcome on that wall would be a window that is fire rated and obviously the wall itself would be a firewall. this is a visualization of the current condition in the light well. you can see up here this is the third floor firewall and the gap. on this picture from the ground floor to second floor you can see the gap and part of the second floor has the firewall and the firewall down below. you have seen the photo. this is to show you the relative sizes of our properties. the appellant is on the fourth floor not impacted by any light whatsoever. on top of that our building, his building is four stories tall. the southern wall of his light well is actually blockage of light to his own light well

because the sun is from the south. the sun in the picture is directly hitting this front portion of his property and passing a shadow to his light well. our property has never produced light for his property. most of the light in this gap is coming from the appellants property. this is to show you the sunlight. look at this line right here it shows where the sun is coming in and the rest is shadows. that is the four-story structure, the wall for the light well on the southern border of the lit well. similar kind of representations of the sunlight. you can see it only hits the northern part of the top part of his light well and the rest is shadows. in the 2017 approved plans he the prior owner represented the

light well condition as fully infilled. there was a 311 notification. this is to show the continuous firewall across all three stories. the 311 notification did not receive any request for discretionary review and there were no complaints lodged on the deck alleged to be unpermitted nor the entire infill condition of the light well. the appellant's residence is on the fourth floor and this looks down to the light well. appellant has issues with histic light well, we are trying to guard against. there is a building code that specifies the distance of set back in a light well that is unprotected. it needs to be 5 feet. sorry 5 feet and then protected with fire assembly.

that is not the case. additionally they have frosted windows which diminish the sunlight to their own windows. this is a log of our attempts to dialogue with the appellant. to this day we don't understand what their concern is. the tenant has also comfort with an extortion letter for $2.5 million buyout of tenancy which we do not wish to entertain. we wish to keep them as a tenant. >> that is time. >> you will have three minutes in rebuttal. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening. congratulations to vice president swig on his elevation to that position. i look forward to working with you in your new role. the subject property 24/7 2 vallejo is rh-2 zoning.

only case on the agenda tonight so it is easy one for the board. it is unique in the scope of work. we don't often see a shared light well filled in with the property line firewall which the permit holder's property has. when we reviewed this application to do work in the light well to add that office area on the second level, we were evaluating it on infilling that 6 by 10 opening. it was more like window opening getting filled in rather than new mask in that area. any impact on light and air to the appellants' property is created by the existing firewall. reswying this we had the assumption that existing firewall and deck were legal. no reason to believe otherwise.

looking back on aerial photos, our aerial photo deposit tore regoes to 20002. i don't see any separate permits for the work in the light well. it does from the photos appear to have been there for quite some time. what is raised now by the appellant in their brief it was unpermitted. we saw that. we didn't have evidence that it was unpermitted. aerial photos showed it more recently today we received a copy of these plans that have it labeled as unpermitted deck. i asked the property owner about that and they had no willing of that. no -- no knowledge of that. they have since contacted the architect and informed them such plans were made and i understand

from their testimony that they were locked in the drawer down stairs. be that as it may, it comes down to if that deck and firewall are illegal, then that needs to be legalized. that would definitely require neighborhood notification. we would also likely require that be set back about three feet from the shared property line. the permit holders property has a large light well, more than a light well, a light court given the large dimensions. they could fill that in under residential design guidelines. we may ask it be set back three feet to match the depth of the appellants property. the reason we didn't ask for it in this case is because of the existing wall that was there on the property line. we were just looking at it as infill of the 6 by 10 opening.

that is where we are. i think a lot of this is new information that came up today. i don't know that we haven't definitely reviewed the legality of it. it is newer information. we may hear more in public comment about the legality of the deck. if the deck is illegal then this needs legalization, notice and probably revision to set back from the side property line. with that i can be available for questions and we will learn more i think during the future comments here. >> thank you. we have a question from vice president swig and then president honda. >> scott, if the planning department doesn't know whether it has been permitted or not,

and you have photos that are two decades old, approximately, that feature that configuration, how do you go about determining the truth? >> the assumption is that it is legal. i think we may need to hear from deputy director for the configuration that is there now. could it have been approvable. we will hear from one of the tenants they built it without permit. there are no permits. in the history there is reroofing permit in 1991. then there is a permit to legalize work in 2016 which is subject to that neighborhood notice referred to. then another kitchen and bath remodel permit for the lower unit. if they say they built it in the

1990s there is no permit evidence of that. we may find it is not legal. generally with the legality of structures we rely on d.b.i. for making those determinations. i think we will hear during public comment. >> right now if it was an hour ago and we were having this conversation and you had not determined there had been no mention of this being ill legal, you would be of the opinion that this is a legally properly issued permit and everything is just fine, but somebody is sending messages on the screen. i would rather they don't do that. >> please don't as i said before you cannot use the chat function

to provide opinion or facts. you will have time to speak during public comment. i don't want to remove you. please don't do that again. thank you. >> thanks very much. let me go back again. if it was an hour ago and you hadn't received this, this would be a properly issued permit. right now that new information fact offings muddies the water. -- fact or if it is fiction muddies the water. we were going to postpone the hearing today. if we can't come up with definite information and you can't find permit history right at the tip of your fingertips, should we move to do anything with this today? >> well, i think that there is a lot of other work on this

permit. i think foundation work. i think we can hear from the parties, but it is conceivable the board could remove any work in the light well from the scope of the permit and allow other work to continue. that is a possibility. i think we need to hear from deputy director duffy and also from members of the public about comments on the legality of the deck. i did see the message in the chat related to the fire well and light well which is being removed already as part of this. deputy director duffy could speak to that if it is a concern of anyone. >> final question. you are always very impressive when you are able as you did a couple weeks ago to pull out a photo from 1492.

from a long time ago on many, many properties. what conditions looked like not 20 years ago but 40, 50, 60 years ago. do you have the ability to do that if we require further information as to whether this deck was regional or not? >> yes, i can pull it up. it is a aerial photo from 1938. i did review that already. it seems there is probably no firewall there. it is inconclusive given the shadows on the building. i can show that to the board on rebuttal so you can see what that looks like. >> thank you for your time. >> president honda. >> rick asked primary question i wanted. i have another question. as the permit holder was showing photos that i didn't see in the

brief, it looked like her question regarding 5 feet away for windows. do those need fire rated. it looked like property line windows. >> i think most windows are off the property line. angled to or within three feet of the property line. i would refer to mr. duffy for that. >> did you notice property line windows? >> i don't think they are property line windows, i did not notice that. >> i will after the permit holder is done i will ask her t reshow those. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. congratulations to commissioner swig on vice-presidency, well-done. just on this building permit.

kitchen and bath remodel remove one set of convenience stairs, fully infill small remainder of light well by connecting pre-existing firewalls. it was signed on the 30th of december 2020, issued on february 22, 2021. it was reviewed by planning and building and meckcan can cal plan check and the permit issued and suspended. the voting permit from building code point of view i didn't see anything untoward about it on the initial review. we do check for building code compliance on these. as we see them, obviously, with the issues brought up with legality of the deck and questions about property line windows, firewall, all of that stuff is building code related.

i will touch on the deck and issue that has come up lately. as you all know and we speak about it every week we have a lot of buildings in san francisco where in a light well previous owners got along great, work done, permits done. it existed for many years. they are difficult when they arrive at our door and we have to look at the permits. we check the microphone and ask for records. they are hard sometimes to determine the legality or what the conditions are. it looked from the photographs that they had been there a long time. it is unfortunate for a new property owner but it is a fact of life. when new owners come in and don't get along. a neighbor brings these up. d.b.i. looks into it.

i don't know if we would issue a violation. we might ask the property owner to provide records and make a determination. we work with colleagues in planning on these things as well. the window issue. it is not usual in believes of this age. those would be allowed to remain if someone doesn't change the size of them. we do see this as well. they are not -- we wouldn't require because of this work being done on 24/7 2 that someone on the neighbor's side would have to do the windows. [indiscernable] i am not sure. you shouldn't depend on someone

else's light well. your light well should be sufficient. they are going to lose some light because the light well infill if permitted would definitely darken their light well. my understanding in reading of the code over the years is that your light well is your light well and that should pro are ride you -- provide you with light and ventilation. i am available for any questions from the commissioners. >> vice president swig has a question. thank you. >> same question, mr. duffy. up until an hour ago there wasn't this extra conversation about legal versus illegal. without this conversation and this knowledge dropped in our

laps a few moments ago, would you see any problem with this permit in the way it was issued? >> when a permit is presented we look at it how it was presented. if new information comes in and this could arrive with us tomorrow morning in the form of a complaint. if we decided planning or building could look at this and say you got a permit on the deck, now we got a complaint the deck is illegal. we might ask that and look further and see if the deck is something that was built without a permit. i do think we are going to hear from somebody here. i think we heard already they built the deck without a permit. that statement alone is sometimes we have a historic

photograph. [indiscernable] it looks like at one point it was filled in. we could look at it differently, yes, based on new information that was received. it is very unfortunate. it didn't seem like it just cage up in the last -- came up in the last hour which is a little bizarre. we could deal with it if the permit went ahead we could deal with it as part of the complaint in a week's time. >> would it be your recommendation that we should take action tonight or would you like to do further research on this element of the permit or barring that should we heed mr. sanchez's suggestion we not stop this and move the rest of

the permit forward and by fir bifurcatethis from the permit. >> mr. sanchez is correct or not. there seems to be work that the people want to get done. i don't think anyone has a problem with that. with the deck issue here i might be better prepared to take rebuttal on that. you wouldn't want to kill the project if this just come up an hour ago. if they can get other work done, i would be in favor with that. i just said the light wells are very difficult because, you know, this is the planning department process. i thought everybody had to get a letter from the neighbor to say it was okay. there are different

interpretations. if that is the case if we did go back to say we are going through a different process from the people on the other side appealing you would wonder if it would ever get done. they may not agree to that, you know. the notification period would be opened up and might change things. i think allowing someone to work is a good idea. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment now. what did you say, president honda? >> i said thank you, deputy director. >> thank you. we are moving to public comment. i see one hand raised. the person who has the number 14152. i don't see the rest. you can go ahead. >> i am eugene anthony the resident on the top floor that seems to be the culprit in all

of this. i have been there since 1988. my cousins and my aunt owned the house. it was a family residence. i was one of the members of the family residing there for the last 33 years. we built the terrace upstairs without a permit. the walls that everyone refers to as firewalls do not exist. they are two by fours cedar with siding on them on both sides, i believe, that does not constitute a one hour firewall. i don't know what other firewalls they are talking about in the area. there is a garbage room down stairs under the staircase but i put siding on to not look at the garbage cans. i don't think that is a one or two hour firewall. that is the set of circumstances. i am the only living relative left who can attest to the

building. it was done without a permit that we just wanted to do something to make me happy. that is it. >> president honda has a question. >> my question is so were you the seller in this transaction? >> no. >> you were not the seller. >> no, no. it was inherited by my cousin's two boys and her granddaughter was executor in the whole thing. >> that was my question. >> thank you. we will hear from zack ar m.o.u. r. please go ahead. >> zack armor.

>> hi. i would like to take public comment. i am the former tenant. i moved into the place back in 2017. i would like to comment on the landlord. the renovation that she does. in 2017 me and my friends. [indiscernable] newly renovated, beautiful. with the most modern gadgets. it was a focal point of gatherings. they were a thing. the family was a great experience. she responded to me very quickly. white a pleasant experience. gorgeous renovated place. if i wasn't moving to new york soon i would be living there for years to come. i would like to say my guests would comment on that as well. this is a quick comment and i

hope you deny the appeal and allow her to continue to remodel as i am sure it will turn-out great. >> any other public comment? i see ms. denise clancy. please go ahead. >> i speak on behalf of the permit holders. we hope that you deny the appeal. we live on green street just one block away from vallejo. i can see their property from our property. when we found they were moving to the neighborhood we were very excited. i walk my dog all of the time and walk by their property all

of the time, from the neighborhood resident i can't imagine that the type of construction they were doing would involve this type of malaise and hope that the board would deny this. i am an attorney myself as is my husband. it seems clear from listening to mr. sanchez and the others absent this last minute surprise an hour before the hearing this would have been permitted to go forward. i find it disturbing and i know this is very reasonable commission. i find it quite disturbing an ongoing campaign includes throwing a tornado into the hearing right before it goes because it seems to violate all forms of due process for them. in the absence of denial of the

appeal, i would hope that mr. sanchez's suggestion they could continue with construction and then delay resolution of the firewall issue would be adopted. they are a lovely family with young children. i have a 6-year-old. we would love them in the neighborhood. >> thank you. anyone else here for public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. we will move to rebuttal. ms. crisp, you have three minutes. >> are you there in. >> hi. i just have a couple of points i would like to make. first on the timing of the

information regarding the illinois legality or unpermitted nature of the deck. that is an issue that they raise understand the appeal brief filed a couple weeks ago. this was not just raised an hour ago. it is an issue that came up an hour ago are copies of drawings that seem to indicate they were unpermitted and information from the tenant who constructed the deck. this is not some sort of intentional sabotaging. our office got involved very recently. we worked as quickly as we could to try to get the plans. we were not able to do that. the permit holder kindly sent them over yesterday afternoon on my request. i appreciate that. the illegal deck is not an issue that just came up an hour ago. some evidence of that is what we

received earlier today. second point is the 2017 permit that the permit holder shared. again, that permit really is not relevant to this permit. it clearly shows the scope of work limited to the rear addition. to the extent that anything else is depicted on that plan, the permit didn't have the effect of legalizing any of that. my final point is that they have no issue with the rest of the project they would support the permit without the work in the infill area. the concern is the shared light well and i know that there is the relationship hasn't gotten off on the best foot, and the frelicots are elderly and live

therant don't have a personal van debt take and didn't break into property and steal plans. you know, i feel like i need to speak to that. it is just not a fair depiction of their character. i didn't want to have to address it, but to some extent i feel i have to address it. they should be given the benefit of the doubt. they are only concerned about the light well and have no issue with the rest of the permit issuing. they want to understand these issues better and have their light well. >> thank you. we have a president honda has a question. >> the question as you brought up. as you saw the permit holder was quite distressed these plans stolen showed up. how did you acquire them? >> i believe and the frelicots

are on the line and my understanding these were preliminary plans the tenant had possession of and those were transmitted to me by e-mail this afternoon. >> e-mail from? >> from our client, from the frelicots. >> are they online? are they here. >> they are. >> i will ask them a question. how did you acquire those plans? you are on mute right now. >> the tenant. >> your tent or the neighbor. >> no the neighbor. >> thank you very much. >> you are welcome. >> is the tenant still online?

>> yes, he is here. >> i have a question for you. how did you acquire those plans? as you saw the permit holder says they were in a locked drawer? >> i have no idea what she is talking about. she showed me her drawings when she first came to the property, and i do this for a living. i have an interior design firm. i was able to sort of say rebuild them as best i possibly could. that is all i can tell you. i don't know what she is talking about. i don't know what they are doing down stairs. my laundry room. >> the question is you did not supply the original plans. >> no, no, no. >> from your memory. >> correct. >> not original plans.

>> no, i have no idea about locked cases. >> that is all interpretation from you, correct, sir? >> yes. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> we will hear from the permit holder ms. hu. >> this is her husband. i think what you just heard from the tenant is that he magically recreated the plans from memory. those plans. [indiscernable] they he were in a locked drawer in a unit not his. this court can make a decision about whether he created from memory or obtained plans from an empty unit illegally. as far as his testimony that he illegally built the unit. we have a long correspondence with him during the buyout where he insisted that deck was legal

and he was insisting on that during the course that he be allowed to retain access to the deck. now today he comes back to the committee in support of the claim and saying, no, he built them and he as the tenant built that deck illegally. i think that is the credibility of his testimony. as far as 311 notification. the reason we are reluctant. normally we would be happy. because of the behavior. we have photographic evidence and happy to get the contractor to testify. we have photos. we can provide to the board. this is the level of harassment which has resulted in us having to obtain temporary restraining

order granted against the frelicots. we don't want to go through 311. we believe they are prejudice against us to renovate. as their lawyer said they are relying on technicality that they weren't given technical notice despite they are living with the deck for 20 or so years. they have been living here for 20 years. new owner comes in, hostile to the new owner. now they are insisting on sort of having 311 notification as a way to get the construction. we have tried to engage with them. they are unresponsive. i would finally ask the board it is a technicality as to whether

this deck was permitted. it has been there 20 years at least. they never complained. the building department can't figure it out. we as good faith purchasers were told originally it was permitted. now there is evidence all over the place. you should focus on practicality. this is not something that would actually -- >> that is your time. thank you. >> we do center a few questions from president honda and commissioner lazarus. >> she had her hand up first. >> thank you. i just want to ask mr. lu or ms wu the purpose is to complete the firewall? is that the reason for it? >> correct. >> a couple reasons. one is we would like to have a

full vertical continuous firewall because at the same time that we do not want to turn this into a discussion or bring down the neighbor, there are significant issues with the fire protection in the light well. the light well is actually set three feet seven inches. it is required five foot set back with sprinklers and fire rated windows. in addition there is a certain density of windows they exceed. we don't want to bring them down. this is never but we want to protect our property the duplex. you saw the magnitude. >> thank you. >> president honda. >> couple questions. one, you recently purchased the

property, correct? >> yes, correct. >> this is a full disclosure state. when you purchased the property did they disclose that work was done unpermitted. >> no, not at all. >> the sellers sold that property to you and did not disclose it was unpermitted and they were living in the property? >> the seller passed away from cancer. our understanding she never really lived at the building. eugene anthony the tenant was the caretaker for the property. he did the horizontal addition. he most likely built that deck. i don't know. >> was it a trust or probate sale? >> yes. >> trust or probate?

>> trust sale. >> trustees didn't live on the property correct. >> correct. >> we were represented that the deck was legal. that was the tenant's position until this hearing. you heard from the lawyer he came forward the testimony it is not legal. as of a day ago it was a legal deck. >> unfortunately we have one case and it was easy. now it is not easy night. more than likely because of the information that was thrown at the last minute there will be aa continuance. for me it goes to integrity of the testimony. you heard that they received those plans from the tenant. tenant did this from memory recall. he is a professional. did you get an opportunity to look at the plans submitted?

>> are you on moot? >> the plans you said in the locked drawer. did you get to review the once submitted? >> yes. >> are they the exact plans? >> they are the exact plans. i apologize. he called an hour before the hearing. they are the exact plans. >> early draft. we had a full understanding of the situation. >> okay. >> during our negotiations. >> i get it. unfortunately we are the board that hears that neighbors are not going to be friends for quite some time. i was asking a question. it may or may not be pertinent but it goes to integrity of the

testimony. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. in terms of the plans that were provided today, i received a photo of plans. it seems someone had seen the plans and taken photos and shared them. i am confused by the testimony of the member of the public tenant who said they just from memory and it wasn't clear what they did from memory other than they are a professional. not that he recreated the plans. i don't know why anyone would go that that level of extent. i can share with the board the plans. i will put them on the overhead here. we are not in city hall. these are the plans.

this is not something that i think someone would just put together one day. these are plans that someone took a picture of. you can zoom out. it looks like maybe it was if we can identify whose tablecloth that may be we know where this was taken. it seems this is a photo taken somewhere and sent along. it is the same scope of work that is being proposed currently and this is where it says the unpermitted deck. this is a concern to us because we know the appellant raised this issue in their brief. we didn't have any supporting evidence of that. i have been in communication with the permit holder. they said maybe that the tenant would say they built it but there was otherwise no evidence of it being unpermitted. that is why i was surprised

there were plans prepared by the property owner that show unpermitted light well. when i asked about that toed they said, no, they are not aware of plans that show this but there are plans in the lock box. i can only report to the board what i am aware of. i am telling you everything i am aware of. it is unfortunate in this case that is complicated. maybe i could provide two orbits of information for the board. there is questions about property line windows. it looks like there are two windows on the permit holder's property adjacent to the light well. they appear on one of the sheets but not both of the sheets. second and third floors. also i have the 1938 aerial photo if the board is interested. it sounds like everyone will

agree it was built in 1990s or late 1980s by the current tenant. i am available for questions. >> vice president swig. >> show us, please, the 1938 photo and that is not my question. can you give us, can you orient us? >> it brings me joy to share the photos. this the one of the best inventions our staff put together. on the right appellants property with the light well. you can see to the left the permit holder's property. large light well square. you can see the firewall, that light line between the two properties. you can see the shade structure overhead.

going back to 1938 aerial photo, this is where i am saying with shadows and resolution it is hard to tell if there is anything in the area. if there had been a firewall up to the roof it would have at least shown as white line in that area but it looks like there is probably some shade structure here which is where the door is into that light well. there are stairs that go to the ground level, this doesn't, you know, indicate to me there is a deck in that area. that is the best that we have on that. >> no permit history that indicates prior to 2002 there were any other permits issued for something that might impact that area? >> no, a permit from 1991, no other permit for work in that area. >> there was a claim and this

may be a joe duffy question as opposed to yourself. you are referring to a firewall. there was mention in testimony that that is not a firewall that is plywood. if we moved forward and approved this permit and i am not saying we are. if we did because you have already told us it would be otherwise legal, wouldn't that show up -- wouldn't d.b.i. or somebody find out in the process of construction that was not a firewall and would that not trigger an nov? >> that would be for deputy director duffy to answer. >> thank you. >> now we will hear commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. this is more of a legal question. if you don't want to answer it

that is fine. maybe based on your experience with these things. we seem to have an admission of somebody having built something without a permit. whose responsibility is it then to fix that? >> it would be the property owner's responsibility for any work on the property. department of building inspection determines that the structure is not permitted then they could require the property owner to obtain a permit to legalize that work. it is the responsibility of the property owner ultimately to make sure the property is code compliant. >> second question. this may reveal my ignore ranges about the structure. if the issue seems to be around the illegal deck, is it possible to do this project and subsequently deal with the deck or does that interfere with the

building of the extended firewall? >> i mean i think it is hard for me to understand what the real concern is here as well. i think that the issue seems to be the neighbor and maybe now they have more information about the firewall and deck that are there now that they don't like it. certainly the property owner wouldn't be obligated to legalize it. they could remove the deck for the third floor and go about some other project at their level, second level where the office is. we would need to review whatever proposal they were to come up with. as we reviewed this we found this to be code compliant and ditch require notice based -- didn't require notice based on the information. now there are new questions calling into question our

decision on the permit. >> from a structural point of view. am i clear if we approved the permit can you deal separately with the deck? >> the deck is the roof of the room underneath. i don't know exactly what their construction plans are there. i doubt they are going to retain the existing deck. i think they will remove it and replace it with a new roof. that is the roof of the office below it. they can address better the property owner can better address their methods for the construction. maybe even the firewall will come down and get rebuilt. i don't know if they have more details to share on how they will construct the project. the deck is right above the room

below. they are infilling the room for the office on the second floor. the roof of that is the deck. it is hard too separate the two. >> thank you. >> president honda. >> we are way deep in the weeds in this, to be honest. they are infilling that light well and then they were retaining the deck, is that correct? >> the plans show the deck will be retained in the new project. at the end of the day a deck for the third floor unit and there will be the room below. that is the end results. >> it was mentioned earlier there is previous permits and there was previous. >> construction, yes. >> i believe it was stated that

the tenant also did illegal construction at the rear of the property. that was found and abatement was started under the previous ownership. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the department of building inspections. >> commissioners, d.b.i. i just the more you get into these cases the uglier they get. it is unfortunate when we deal with older buildings in the city of san francisco and all of the buildings and i talk about that. this is obviously sometimes you can live your life and nothing is never said about your building. unfortunately in this case we have neighbors that brought up issues. the problem is for the property owners having the date with this. you get into the mix d.b.i. and

planning looking at records and can't find anything. we don't have anything in our system. we are not going to get an answer or he wills we get the answer there was no permit. what do we do? you know, it is a case-by-case basis. you are not going to run a notice of violation right away. this was 30 years ago. i thought we were going to hear that. the concern there was a deck built at some point not designed by a structural engineer and architect. that is great. you know if you were building that deck today and come in with the permit for new deck because it is so close to the property line it would require a foundation at the ground level and 1r firewall continuous to the level of the deck probably to the roof level.

that wall is for your foundation you can easily they are made out of 3 by four studs. you are putting sheetrock on either side and building paper and siding the whole way up. the point of structure, to be honest. that is what you are building today. like i said at the start we know sitting here from week to weak people bring up issues all of the time, a fence, window or some appendage on the building that may have got built in the '70s, 80s or 90s without a permit. what do you do? this is unfortunate situation. maybe they need to rethink the infill of the light well. i printed the plans on my desk. i didn't cedi tail for the -- didn't see any detail for

infill. as the permit is sharoned. the only part 1r is the middle infill. the rest would remain noncomplaint. it seems there is new information. i am available for questions. i could talk all night. the permit holder brought up something about the other building not right sprinklers. >> that is your time. thank you. >> please finish. >> i will over rule and let you finish. >> it is good you stop me. the other building, those again these buildings are 100 years old. i appreciate scott putting up the 1930 photograph. when those buildings were built, i see even the house i live in like this. at one time everybody was open

to each other. the light wells were open. two stairs going downsides by side in both buildings. you could have jumped to your neighbors. as the years go on people put up walls, plastic sheeting over them, they don't want water coming in. 100 years ago the water and rain came in. that is the way they were built. that is why they are floor drains. over the years this is more install issue. it is really unfortunate. it is something the owners have to deal with. one way or the other tonight or through a complaint at d.b.i. we will deal with. >> questions from all of the commissioners for you. >> thank you. we will hear from vice president swig. >> i want to take a chapter out of commissioner lazarus' song

book and state to the task at hand which is the filling in of the light well. this is not about a deck. this is about filling in the light well as well as the other elements of the permit which are not under question at the moment. mr. duffy, if this board approves this permit tonight and the construction began and you sent folks out to inspect the light well portion of the permit and they discovered the site as it is today or they stumble upon something else and you said something that is really important that was brought up as something that it was unacceptable. you just accepted it which is i

think you said that the firewall above and the firewall below are accepted as noncompliant. did you say that? >> what you meant was that if you were going to inspect that if this project was approved, if the work doesn't show you are upgrading those, you are probably going to be okay with it. that is not part of what was approved. from what i am reading i don't say they are demolishing the existing wall and rebuilding from ground up. this looks like 6 by 10. that is what they are talking about a partial firewall less than 10 by 6 feet. the inspector might bring it up, you know, you can't make them rebuild it again if you are looking at an approved permit.

>> i will cut you off. i think you answered my question. really what we are dealing with the an inspector went there yes or no, if inspector went there to in that infill wall which is the subject of this permit, the inspector would say construction on assuming it was built right, the insulation of this new firewall as infill is appropriate and legal and we notice that above and below are noncompliant period. no notice of violation, no nothing, correct, yes or no? >> you said noncompliant. nonconforms is the word. you have a lot of nonconforming. you have looking at something that is existing already approved by the inspector. you might look at other

structural issues to say i don't like the look of this. get the architect and revisit this. it is a possibility we would bring it up. because 90% of that wall is nonconforming you are not going to make them knock it all down. you could. depends on the condition of the wall. we are not going to let something go that looks unsafe. we didn't hear that tonight. if the wall above and the wall below are in good structural condition and no dry rot or failure that is evidence to the inspector he is going to look at the new infill and say this is fine and notice that the two other walls are nonconforming. the fact that there is an illegal deck on the top has nothing to do with this permit in this case. >> it all depends.

again, if i go out there and i am inspector talking about my own personal experience. you are looking at a deck. if i saw the joints under sized you are going to ask that question, you are the inspector. it could come up in the inspection. >> but the portion of that portion which is the infill portion of the wall would be approved and the inspector might say i am approving this portion of the construction and by the way have you ever heard the term nov? if you haven't i am going to introduce you because i noticed there is an illegal deck that might be illegal. should expect a notice for you to take action on that deck. that would be separate from -- this is where i am going -- separate from what we hear

tonight. is it okay to do that infill? >> well, it is going to create a room that wasn't there before. i am looking at the drawings. there are questions about the structural detail on the drawings. not partial infill. this is a question for the permit holder. it is portrayed as partial infull. the drawings show enough infill. i don't know enough forecast if they are intending to rebuild the wall the whole way and what is going to support the whole new room there. i am not seeing the roof detail on the plans. there are definitely questions about the drawings. >> can we deviate and digress from mr. duffy and ask mr. duffy's question of the permit holder, please. >> of course. if you have a question. ms. hu.

>> so when we had the approved plans we assumed everything was a firewall. it is correct that i think within the recent investigation period leading us to this appealing we have reason to believe some of those firewalls are just plywood. >> the question is -- mr. duffy would you ask the question complete infill or partial. >> are you building a new wall from the ground to the roof that is a wall or infilling 10 by 6. >> we want a full one hour wall. we thought that it would just be the 10 by 6. i think we have to redo the wall that is potentially not a firewall. the intent is a full firewall. does that answer the question?

if not i can clarify. >> that is not on the plans. it is good to know. that is another permit you need. >> absolutely. we would file an addendum or another permit as appropriate to paysicly rectify the site position which is our intent full firewall. >> i am done. >> president honda has a question for deputy director duffy. >> i will let my fellow commissioners ask questions first. >> commissioner lazarus and commissioner chang. >> mr. duffy, under the circumstances and with everything you have heard what would be your comfort level with continuing with this permit as is.

>> i am not sure you can go ahead on the current plans i am looking at. there are details missing that are required anyway. i am not too sure. mr. sanchez did say about taking the light well. but the light well, i think that is creating an office on one floor. you are getting a new roof. if there the other work they are willing to do and address the light well under a new permit that is the best for them, the best option. as you heards the permit holders speak there is going to be another permit required. maybe that should be to construct 1r firewall and legalize deck and go through the process with that. i am not hearing that. that might be the way to go. maybe they do that on this

project. >> your comments about the details that weren't providing or missing information, should that not have been determined or observed when the permit was approved by your department? >> yes. >> i will stop there. thank you. >> commissioner chang. >> commissioner duffy, your question about the infill versus full firewall. how does that change how you would have otherwise observed this or do you just state it that you would recommend that the permit holder submit a new permit altogether in order to construct or have the entire

firewall from the ground up be approved. >> if it is missing details. now we hear somebody built the deck without a permit. there are a lot of unanswered questions about the permit. [indiscernable] the language of kitchen and bath remodel. they want to do work there. this light well area seems to be the bone of contention. you know, i don't like to be put on the spot what i would like. that is what the commission is for. i definitely think if we would do inspections on the project there would be questions about the extent of the light well, of the firewall and how it is going to be built and stuff like that. i see some structural details on the drawings but i think there

is stuff missing on the drawings in that area. you know, that does happen. in answer to commissioner lazarus' comment. the inspectors are good about i noticed you have the permit the drawings are good but no detail. you have to go back get revision permits. they are common. they are something you will see. if there is something missing on the plan the architect missed there has to be detail for firewall on the plans. >> if i may, deputy sanchez. if i understand correctly what was initially presented to the planning staff was the permit

request to infill a level that was underneath the deck and therefore because it was a small portion that had little to no impact to the adjacent property it could be approved without notification. now with the new information about the deck being permitted that is what would otherwise give the planning department pause because in order to have it fully legalized you would need both the light well and the deck to be legalized. in that case, how would the planning department typically process such a request? >> thank you, commissioner chang. you are correct. we viewed this as basically filling in a 6 by 10 opening in an existing wall. if now what we are hearing that wall itself is not properly

permitted and would need to be legalized that would trigger notification. it wouldn't be full 311 owners within 150 feet. it would be a notice to the adjacent property. we would apply residential design guidelines on the infill and generally look at setting it back at least 3 feet the wall from the shared property line to match the depth of the light well on the appellants property. there are cases where maybe we would allow them to build to the property line. for example sometimes we get a project where the maybe says we are filling in our light well, too, and they come in towing and we allow them to both remove the light wells. that is not the case here. at the end of the day if we look at legalizing that wall we will set it back three feet to match.

we didn't review that. would would need to bereviewed by the staff on the permit application. they may come to a different conclusion. i am stating what is likely to happen. that being said while there is a lot of discussion today about the illinois legality of the deck it is possible permits could be found and the deck determined to be legal or has that been ruled out as possibility? >> it would be difficult given the testimony this evening. the person is still there, they built the deck, they were a relative of the property owner at the time which i wasn't aware of. it seems that i would find it unlikely there is a permit for that. >> president honda. >> first of all, we have gone way into the weeds here and got offline.

what is in front of us is a fully approved project by both parties. because of the last minute testimony of the illinois legality of the deck which came from an individual that said he rerecalled andrew it by total recall which i don't find that to be truthful myself. one question is if the deck is illegal, then does the permit older are they required to remove it. that is one. anybody. >> president honda, you know the language that d.b.i. uses in these legalize or remove. we give them the option to remove it. >> since it was illegally put on

the permit holder has the right to remove it? >> you can remove it. as property owner, as i tell people you can do that. >> we have spent at least an hour just on the legality and illegal part of it, right? no one proved it is illegal, right? we have photographs from before indicating it was there on the last known photograph we took and prior to that. how do you tell me if it was legal on my building that it is now illegal. we don't have the original plan on file? >> no, we don't have a plan, no, no, no. high rise buildings. >> i will ask if question to the person that supplied the photographic memory drawing. are you still online, sir?

>> he is here eugene anthony. >> question for you, sir. >> yes. since you built this illegally and besides the drawing or architectural rendering you recreated yourself, what evidence do you have that this deck is illegal since you built it. do you have a picture of it or receipt for the work done at the time. >> it was built back in i am going to say. >> that wassents my question. >> i am trying to give you how far back it was to help you so you don't understand i don't have receipts for it. >> do you have any pictures? you have lived there a long time. >> 33 years. you have no picture of it in the prior condition? >> no, we didn't have cameras any more. the phone cameras. >> i am telling you we built it.

>> you redrew that from photographic memory which is hard to believe. >> i also photographed it so it was easy to do. >> that is not what you said earlier. >> you didn't ask that question. i have photographs of it. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> i would like to start, if i may. i have gone around it probably 260 degrees pay couple times on this. i don't necessarily agree that we have spent most of the time on the deck. i think commissioner duffy or inspector duffy has raised some issues concerning the permit itself. my inclination would be to do what i think commissioner sanchez to bring everybody up to the same level suggested earlier

if we can sever parts of the permit if it is clear enough to do that so that the work on the back and kitchen could proceed and the rest would need to be subject to a new permit and potentially a new process. >> i see deputy commissioner vice president duffy's hand up. >> i am sorry. one other thing i want to alert the commissioners to as well. when you look at these things in the case i did notice the permit holders were adding the property line and new office. i don't see that process described on the plans as well. that would be something we would look for as well. i want to bring that up.

the permit holder can confirm they are creating an office with new property line window. that is not on the plans either. >> i think after commissioner lazarus' questions i would want to talk to the permit holder or architect. i believe mr. gee is online. >> i am done for the moment. >> commissioner swig. >> i would like to take the same direction as commissioner lazarus. i see no reason to hold up this permit for the other elements. i would think that it is putting the permit holder at a distinct and unnecessary advantage. hearing the permit holder tell us that they actually would like to go further than just building the 10 by 10 space and in fact,

they now want to build a firewall that goes from ground level to the top, then why not stop this process at this point. let them review that whole construction program in general. there are now questions mr. duffy brought up about a window a question by mr. sanchez as to a setback that should occur. i think we should move forward approve the permit but exorcize the portion which includes closing in the space and let them come back, refile for another permit, go through the programming and really do the detail about the infill, come up

with the detail about going from ground to roof with a different firewall, set back to make it legal and also within that i am sure the deck will come up because it will. that is kind of where i am going. >> i am similar. i would like to hear from permit holders. i see an architect are you for permit holder or appellant? >> permit holder's architect is not present. are you available? >> yes, we are available. >> the question is you see where the board is going with this. is your engineer or architect online or do you have the ability to answer and go forward. >> i can probably answer. is the question if i can clarify. if the question is whether we

can provide further detail as to how the firewall would be erected at the property line? >> we are not -- it is mentioned by two commissioners they don't want to hold up the project going forward but they are going to put an x on the firewall portion until that is straightened out. >> i do understand that. if i may offer a suggestion because we are in a pretty hostile environment and it appears that whatever we do is going to attempt to be blocked by either the tent or neighbor. that light wall area, you know, i wrote this in my brief. we have three generations of

people living with us. we would like to have a way to two separate units have a way of internally connecting between them. that was in the light wall area. >> at this point i don't think that is going to be -- you have answered my question. thank you. >> i appreciate the fact you guys are saying you are willing to let the project continue. that is very constructive. i think in terms of next step certainly you have heard us say we are willing to do the firewall. we would appreciate guidance on separating the two portions. >> that is what i was asking if you had the ability to do that. if you have a paid professional that is an architect or engineer here. that is why you said that. >> we could continue with our

construction. we would not be able to wrap up our construction without having resolution on this issue. as you might appreciate it is hard to finish the building. >> let me add something if i can, darrell. with regard to the permit holders concern there is a hostile environment. the law is the law. if you all come back with a revised plan for that section which i am advocating that we abandoned for you tonight because there are so many things up in the air that when you resubmit and resubmit a plan that is acceptable to the planning department, that is legal by review of d.b.i., then you will get your permit.

if it is legal. if somebody is upset about that like your next door neighbor, they can be upset about that, but that is why we are here. if you come up with a legal program and design that works for planning and d.b.i., you should have no worry other than the fact you will have a bad relationship and that is their choice with your neighbor to get your job done. right now there is so much hair on this dog that i see no other direction than for us to help you buy separating out the firewall portion, infill portion and letting you move on with other portions of your project to allow you to improve the building and file a separate project as you have been advised by planning and d.b.i. and move it forward legally.

are we clear? >> yes, we appreciate that. >> question. i don't know if it is from mr. duffy, is it easy enough if we were to grant appeal and condition permit on x portion being excised is that clear from the way the permit is written? >> i can answer the question. it is probably do-able but i think the architect needs to answer the question on the drawings. there is work here. what are you going to do remodel kitchen and bathroom? is that what they are going to do? we like to see plans what the work would entail because it does away with the office, the 1r window and does away with a

lot of things. >> i automatic d.b.i. would want revised -- i assume that d.b.i. would want approved plans to draw the process out. >> do we need to continue this to just take that action potentially, mr. duffy? >> i think a continuance is good in this case to give them time to rethink what happened tonight as well with the new information. maybe they can look at the the project with the architect to say what they are going ahead within this case. maybe it is an easier permit to get internally. yes, they need time to think about this. continuance is good. >> that is a different direction. that is the one you think is best suited to the issues? >> i do, yes, i wouldn't hurt

here. it is up to the commissioners. the project is going the change significantly in my opinion from what i see on the plans from what they are able to do on the inside. it could be done on special conditions permit. it is not appealable and they can do some work on the inside. >> thank you. >> permit holders i want to ask you a question. you can't speak. commissioner chang you have a question? >> yes. i have been on this deputy administrator answered and communicated and just hearing the permit holder's concern about the situation and wanted to just offer a suggestion.

you said that from your perspective if this were to move forward as a brandna permit and you apply the residential design guidelines that the light well could be matching, that staff with support 3-foot light well which would match the appellant's light well. i guess my question is would we as the board and i guess i would ask if the permit holder would be, if this would, you know, achieve some of their goals. could we as a board grant the appeal on the condition that the proposed light well be reduced or the fill in be reduced such

that there is a matching light well and that the deck be legalized in is that a potential packet that we could explore and that way still protect light and air for the appellant but help the permit holder in achieving what they desire and the other goals? >> excellent question. the board has jurisdiction over the permit. the board can take any action appropriate. we would support something along those lines. maybe it would be good to hear from appellant if that is something they would support. they would be in better condition than what is there currently. in terms i would discuss with our residential staff if we would have the 3-foot set back just at the third level or both

second and third level. if it is second and third level that would be supportable by the appellant and maybe we could have a moment where we come back at future hearing and everyone agrees and we can move on with things. >> can we hear from the permit holder? is that something to help achieve your family goals and potentially be a compromise? if you understand you wouldn't need the firewall. there would be space to fill in more of it. >> thank you, commissioner chang for that helpful suggestion. we would support what commissioner sanchez just said d third floors. our concern is frankly moving our family in as soon as possible. if we could be permitted to

continue work to revise our plans to reflect 3-foot set back on second and third floors we would support that decision. >> thank you. i think that would be my recommendation. i would seek counsel from fellow commissioners to see what their thoughts would be on that. >> the only thing i thought i heard some hesitation on the part of mr. sanchez about needing to corroborate that would work are we talking about continuance or going that direction tonight? >> i think it is up to the second and third level that would be as much as we would require in our application design guidelines. we can hear from the appellant

as well. some feedback from them. >> i will ask whether the appellant would find that to be a satisfactory condition. please answer that question. >> what do you want? [indiscernable] >> i don't know. i am thinking. issue no permit? [indiscernable] >> can he answer this tomorrow

to talk about it? can we talk about it and answer it tomorrow? >> this matter would get continued for two weeks at least. we have no meeting next week. the meeting will conclude tonight. >> they are going to move it three feet. not going to be closed. >> you know what? we are waiting at the end. [indiscernable] the answer is not right. i think. [indiscernable] do we make sure they do the right thing? >> i honestly think that the

appellant is correct putting this position is awkward. two week continuance will result in an opportunity for all parties to think, revision of plans, a clear and concise direction to make everybody comfortable or hopefully make people more comfortable. i don't believe a two week continuance and stall of this project for the permit holders will put them at a significant disadvantage or cause them harm. i suggest we take all of the advice offered, great advice by commissioner chang, the flexibility of the permit holders that we just heard and the opportunity and i hope that the appellant will be gracious to open up lines of communication between themselves and the permit holder and that

two weeks you will come back and we put this to bed in the most positive of fashions. that would be my suggestion. >> thank you, sir. >> two weeks. i want to thank commissioner chang, excellent idea. to the permit holders, sorry for the delay. there is a lot of stuff uncertain at this point. because you don't have your architect and engineer you don't have the ability to answer the questions we asked. following the direction of the board i will make a motion to continue this for two weeks. at that time three pages of briefing. >> okay. each party three minutes. do you want to specify the purpose or just to clarify for the parties the purpose of the continuance? >> i think the reason why is to clarify what has transpired.

>> so all of the parties have an opportunity to contemplate commissioner chang's suggestion. >> or come up with their own. i do advice to the apple applelantsyou have not responde. in two weeks this board will make a decision one way or the other this board will make a decision. it would be best if you sat down and hashed this out if you like each other or not. you have millions of dollars of real estate here. you need to sit down. in two weeks this board will make a decision if you like it or not. that is to both parties permit holder and applelant. >> so the parties can try to work together on a solution. >> correct. >> if i may add something that is important to address --

duffy. it would be are you department s the concerns and ensure that you provide detail on structural concerns or anything like that. this might go away there may no longer be a firewall if you proceed. i want to make sure that we are covering our bases in terms of the concerns but ensuring full permit you are talking to the planning department as necessary and things like that so we can put this to bed. >> ensuring that deputy director duffy concerns are addressed and appropriate detail is provided? >> with building and planning. decks and everything requires both departments.

>> okay. we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter to may 5th so the parties can work on a solution. they can address the concerns expressed by deputy director duffy and deputy administrator scott sanchez. commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that passes. thank you 4-0. this matter is kinked to may 5th. to the parties. the president allowed three pages of briefing. your brief is due 4:30 p.m. on the thursday prior to the hearing. i will send out an e-mail with the details tomorrow. this concludes this matter for now. >> thank you everyone. see you in two weeks.

>> thank you, sir. on february 2r

declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19, and on may 29, 2020, the mayor's office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our 20 remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention, and, most of all, your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone.

sfgovtv is streaming and airing this event live. once the building inspection commission hearing concludes, sfgovtv will then begin broadcasting our hearing live. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-181-1395. when you hear the item that you want to comment on, press star, three to enter the queue. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from

a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and state your name. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to comment on items not on the agenda. seeing no members of the public wishing to offer public comment, public comment is closed. we are now on item 2, department matters. >> thank you, commissioners. i'd like to remind you that the public conference is open. it's going to occur virtually again june 8 from june 10. this is a great way to get your training underway, basically, your preservation that we track through the office of his torque preservation. -- historic preservation.

that's all i have, commission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i do have a member of the public wishing to speak. i will ask if it's appropriate at this time. member of the public, you have been unmuted. which item did you wish to speak to? >> hi, there. i wanted to speak in general public comment, but i couldn't get in in time. >> clerk: chair, should we open public comment up to let this comment back in? >> yes. >> thank you. my name is bridget maily. this is one of seven carnegie branch libraries in san francisco. the building has not been landmarked. i'm requesting today, during

your commission comments and questions, you ask for a status update to this designation. the report was completed by me on a pro bono basis, was thorough and complete, and i've heard nothing contrary from department staff. the report followed the layout of the six previous reports. one thing that i regret not including was the detail of the reading room. the six previous reports noted the spatial volume of the reading room was a [inaudible] this adjacent project will result in a permanent change to the interior aesthetics of the

main reading room by blocking light to the south facing windows. i'm asking that when you finally receive the library designation report, that you update the language of the character defining features of the main reading room, not just for this library, but for all carnegie libraries, to read, the spatial reading room and the natural light afforded by the generous windows at the room perimeters. let's amend the carnegie reports so that future projects will not have the same detrimental future impacts. let's not let the same thing happen to the other carnegie libraries. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. members of the public, last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed, and we can

resume our agenda. >> i had a question for rich about the agenda. >> clerk: sure. >> rich, i looked at the agenda for each day, and i noticed there are a lot of important cabinets on the first day. will anybody from the planning department be presented? >> yeah. from what i understand, alison who is our lead from archaeo as well as ceqa is presenting on a mitigation webinar. we're actually just starting to get polled about what everyone else is doing since everyone else tends to do a little bit of their whole thing, but we'll gather up any of the issues that the staff are leading and

follow along. >> yeah. i just wanted to know definitely if our staff would be participating. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there are no further questions for department staff, we can move onto item 2, department matters or announcements. >> i have no matters or announcements at this time. >> clerk: item 3, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for april 7, 2021. members of the public, this is your time to address minutes. we have no attendees, so public comment is closed. [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i heard two motions and no seconds. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 4, commissioner comments and questions. >> so i -- during public comment, we heard that somebody is interested in inquiring about the status of the golden gate valley branch library, so if we could have somebody from the staff provide us with a status report at our next commission meeting, that would be great.

>> sure, we're happy to do that at the next meeting. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioner pearlman is requesting to speak. >> yes, thank you. i was going to ask the same thing, so i was just going to ask that. thank you. >> clerk: very good. if there are no additional comments from members of the commission, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 2021-002933-pca to simplify restrictions on small businesses. this is a planning code amendment. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. laurel [inaudible] from the mayor's office will do an introduction, and then, i will do the presentation. >> thank you, sheela, and thank you, commissioners, for having

us here today. this is the mayor's building recovery act [inaudible] she asked planning staff and the office of economic and workforce development to come together to explore ways to further cut bureaucracy to cut red tape and [inaudible] and to provide protections and opportunities for entertainment establishments in san francisco. this large piece of legislation aims to achieve all three goals and specifically for the part that catches your purview, it will explore ways that businesses and historic spaces can get open more expeditiously. i'll leave it to sheela to explain the details.

>> thank you, laurel, and i'm going to share -- ta-da. did that work? >> clerk: we can see it, but you might want to make it full screen. >> i can do that. all right. is that look good? >> clerk: great. >> all right. good afternoon, commissioners. i am sheela nickolopoulos, planning department staff. as laurel said, there are three parts of this small business recovery act. one is to cut through bureaucracy by cutting through prop h and other elements by opening a neighborhood business. second, by implementing flexibility to support short-term recovery and the long-term viability of our neighborhood businesses.

this will also support our shared spaces goals, and finally protections and opportunities for businesses our arts. performance and art spaces were some of the first businesses to close at the start of the pandemic and will likely be some of the last to reopen. so i just want to give you some context of some of the precovid challenges that businesses were experiencing before the pandemic hit. so in the past year, with the option of on-line shopping, consumers want to buy locally what they can't buy on-line, and there were costs for retail establishments, including start-up costs and on going costs, particularly in an area with high cost of living, and we had several city reports that go into detail about these

challenges, including the 2008 oewd state of the retail sector, and we had a 2009 study on m.c.s. to highlight some of the changes that we've seen in this past decade, one retail sector has grown much more than any other, and that's dining. this uses data from the north american classification industry. the top four lines of the chart are blue is restaurants. the green is apparel, the dark green is groceries, and the other is personal care. restaurants were especially hit hard in the 2008 recession and again in this last year, during the pandemic. and then we -- i want to talk about some of our covid aspects

that we've seen, as well. in the dramatic way, it's affecting how we work, shop, and socialize, as well. downtown areas are relatively quiet right now. we are also seeing renewed interest in the 15-minute neighborhood. as workers stay home and transit is limited, it's underscoring the need of meeting daily needs more home. to go into more about the covid impacts for neighborhood patrons, neighborhoods

vulnerable to the economic aspects of the pandemic are likely neighborhood based. neighborhoods where they've seen dramatic changes in their patron base are more hit by the impact. some neighborhoods have seen dramatic move out rates. per change of move out data from usps, there's been a 600% increase of move-out rates from chinatown and nob hill. in san francisco overall, we've seen a rise in retail vacancy rates. on-line sales have increased as more people shop at home. there is an uncertainty about pent-up demand. some speculate that consumers are eager to return to old habits, while others are

positive that new shopping factors will remain. there's more than a year's worth of opening and closing have been extremely difficult. their doors were shut from march to november, closed again in december, and still operating at limited capacity. we've had more than 100 restaurants in san francisco close, and there's been a 45% decrease in small business openings per chamber of commerce, from the development department, san francisco and san mateo have lost 120,000 jobs, mostly in hospitality, but also in food service and

drinking. we've had fee deferrals for business season tax registration. the shared spaces has gone from less than 100 to more than 2,000 businesses operating these spaces. there's been an eviction moratorium, and there's been more than $11 million to support workers who have had covid and faced financial hardships. last summer, the -- following the shelter in place orders and

anticipating severe economic impacts of the pandemic, the mayor created the pandemic tax ordinance to identify tangible steps towards financial recovery. one was to focus on redesigning the permit process, extending and supporting the shared spaces program, rethinking the rules that reflect temporary arts, culture and hospitality and entertainment and catalyzing neighborhoods recovery through the arts. in the fall, voters -- 61% of voters approved prop h. i'm sure you're familiar with this, so just to highlight some of the key points, there's a 30-day permit for permitting commercial uses, and restaurants, limited restaurants, and other uses were principally permitted

citywide, which really changed the landscape. now to give you some background, i will dive into the specifics. it's a dense piece of legislation, so i'll move through these one by one. this will expand the prop h guarantees. under prop h, the 30-day processing applied to all ground floor retail in neighborhood commercial zoning, and this will expand the process into all districts, including mixed-use and downtown; including planning, d.b.i., p.u.c., and public works. this ordinance would expand the benefits to more businesses. the 30-day permitting for processing permits benefits the

city by reducing the staff time on principally permitted uses. secondly, to make this 30 days possible, we are removing the 311 notification requirement for mixed use and commercial zoning. this is already in place for neighborhood commercial zoning, and would be expanded. this will help us implement the 30-day. lastly, we're going to make bars, night time entertainment, medical cannabis dispensaries, nonretail service, and chain retail [inaudible] that 11 but they are still a local enterprise. so dealing with category of

further cutting bureaucracy, one is the elimination of the abandonment clause. under the current regulation, if a bar with conditional authorization were to close and the space sits vacant for three years, an incoming bar will have to repeat that process. currently, a restaurant, limited restaurant, or retail applying for a conditional use authorization is required to provide a calculation for other businesses within 300 feet of their area. the difference between a limited restaurant and a restaurant per planning code definitions might not be clear to an applicant who's

collecting the data. so the linear feet calculations don't always represent how one may experience the streetscape, so it may not be a meaningful measurement. an important note to this is that under prop h, restaurants and limited restaurants are principlely permitted in almost all n.c.s for at least the next three years, so this will be in the 23 zoning districts that require n.c.s for bars and all of the n.c.s where formula retail requires a c.u. and then, the last piece on here is that the small business recovery act will reduce the time -- well, actually, so this one -- i want to move forward. so this one, i'd like to kick over to rich to talk through this proposed -- there's actually a proposed modification, and we had included a recommendation in the memo, and upon further

review by staff, we'd like to alter that modification. and rich, do you want to talk through the specifics of what this means and why? >> sorry. sorry. i'm having trouble with my video [inaudible]. yeah, i'm happy to chat about what this means. so when we were first chatting with the mayor's office, we wanted to reduce the minor permit to alter from 20 days to 10 days. in reviewing the timeline for these uses, we recognize that even having some noticing on a 30-day policy is challenging. that is an admin certificate of appropriateness or minor permit to alter. still has to follow all of the rules that are in article 10 or

11. it just means the staff are conducting an administrative review of the project basically, so right now, we're currently working under a delegation that was adopted in 2019 for basically identifying the scopes of work that qualify for admin review versus full review by the historic preservation commission. since we've had the admin and minor process, and since 2012, we've had a little over 1,000 admin and minor permits to alter. of those 1,000, we've only received three requests for hearing, which is basically when a member of the public asks and challenges a staff definition of the staff review and requests the full h.p.c. to decide if a full certificate of appropriateness is required or not.

>> thank you, and we can certainly circle back to questions about that following the rest of the presentation. so continuing on in our category of enhancing flexibility. so first, prop h permitted outdoor areas in n.c.t.s with specific limitations, they had to be on the ground floor, waiting between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., operating not in association with a bar use and where associated with i arestaurant or limited restaurant, the outdoor activity area had to include seating, not standing areas for patrons. this ordinance would principally permit rooftop uses with those same provisions where they're applicable. any rooftop operations during this would be subject to all health, safety, and egress requirements. secondly, this will allow restaurants, not just limited

restaurants, to host catering businesses. this will give businesses and entrepreneurs more opportunity to share space and operating costs. this change will offer another path towards recovery. submitting a.d.u.s in the rear of commercial space as allowed for regular dwelling units. so the -- this ordinance will allow a.d.u.s constructed in the rear commercial space a minimum 25 feet depth is maintained facing the commercial street front. it allows an a.d.u. to take space on the ground floor. in most cases, where the commercial space is flush with the sidewalk, this means that residential space can take over any amount of ground floor except the front 25 feet which has to be occupied with an active use. as a.d.u.s must be an accessory

to residential, it would apply only to commercial and not residential. we will also delete the unique definitions -- so this simplification reduces the overall number of separate retail definitions and is intended to decrease the need for change of use permits, particularly for permits that are so similar, like instructal gyms and services. on the ground floor, this change will not trigger any changes to the permitting of

cad boarding gym or instructional service, but it will make trade shop more specific in 1 and c. lastly, we get to our category of supporting arts and culture. so the first one is the -- this actually would permit temporary entertainment resources in outdoor areas, including temporary structures for a maximum of two years. this would provide artists and performers for recovery opportunities. this will create a new planning code section to add a j.a.m. permit to continue with added flexibility. this was implemented under the emergency declaration, and this program will allow it to continue. there's a proposal for a new

c.u. to remove night time entertainment uses for two years. the c.u. for removal provides a stopgap measure during recovery and is supported by the venue coalition. the small business recovery act will also remain planning code requirements to impose certain predetermined conditions in order to impose a c.u. for each project. the planning commission and entertainment commissions would still have the ability to impose any requirement they see fit. in addition, there's a few police code amendments that are also built into this that i'll just highlight quickly. [inaudible] without an entertainment permit. the second is to remove a restriction on one-time permits where they're currently limited to 12 days in a 12-month

period, we're going to remove that restriction and move a limited live performance from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. to give asummary to the equity impact, it's to reduce the need for capital and open impacts. we recognize that simply removing these barriers does not lead to -- does not directly lead to equitable out comes, so we see all of this supported by all of the other support programs to support those who need it, whether it be individual businesses or neighborhoods and communities. for a.d.u.s, we hope this might be able to produce more affordable housing time that is embedded within neighborhood amenities, and i just want to

note there's no prohibition against modifying anything against future desires so we can continue to be responsive to neighborhoods' needs. i do want to note we received letters of support from the san francisco chamber of kmergs, the yerba buena community benefit district, the hayes c.b.d., the castro c.b.d., and the mission c.b.d. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sheela. that concludes staff presentation. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public that would like -- if you would like to speak to this matter, please press star then three to be added to the queue. okay. we have one member of the

public in the attendee list, but i guess they don't want to speak to this matter, so public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. and so this is a planning code amendment for your recommendation to the planning commission. we'll then approve and move it to the board of supervisors if it continues that path. >> commissioner pearlman, did you -- >> yes, thank you. am i correct in understanding there is only one item in this entire package that relates to the historic preservation commission? is that correct? >> that is correct. so we gave you the whole show so you could get the full picture. >> well, thank you. i do appreciate that. i do have a question about that one item. i wonder, did you entertain eliminating [inaudible] for the

administrative of the acoa and the mpta. it says we're at a level of less than .3 of 1%. if it's administrative, why do you need any appeal period? i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. it just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo.

>> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj.

this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is appealable unless, you know, instituted by statute. so i might defer to the city attorney for additional questions on this, but that's my understanding. >> i'll just chime in. this is liz watty, director of planning. should somebody want to appeal the admin for the minor, it's the same appeal body as the permit itself, so the idea is any member of the public can appeal any building permit, so if someone would want to appeal that individual or the minor, it would likely run concurrently with the appeals period with the building permit

itself, so we're hoping, again, to pinch out any redundancy or notification time that we don't feel is bringing any value to the end product. >> thank you. >> i had a question -- actually, two questions. so let's -- let's say just, for example, there is that legacy business that -- there's a legacy business -- sorry. i'm in my office with the dogs -- and they needed to take a break for a year or two years. are you saying through this new -- or through this revised amendment, they would be able to open again without going through any of the processes this that they would have to do previously? >> regardless of if it's a

legacy or any type of business, if they had shut their doors but they remained in a building, they wouldn't have to go through any sort of process. >> my next question is having access to this information for people who are not native english speakers. will this be available in various languages? >> yes. >> if a person who is maybe not comfortable speaking english has questions to go through this new process, are there

humans available for that person to have a consultation with? >> yes. >> thank you. >> are there any further questions? yes, commissioner nagaswaran. >> hi. i've read through some of these parts of this program. are some of them a two-year period and other parts

permanent? can you please explain? >> what parts are permanent versus what would be temporary? so all -- everything will be permanent except for a few things. in addition, the other one, the two-year one is the limited live performance piece, and that would be limited to two years, as well. >> thank you. also, how do people find out about these programs?

do they go to the city website or how do they find out what it provides? >> the prop h, like, the 30-day program. the city has done quite a bit to advertise that and reach out to associations, for sure, and then, oewd targets specific communities and populations, and they have strong ties with the neighborhood planning groups that can help disseminate changes, as well. >> [inaudible] are saying oh, hey, you're eligible for this. go provide through this way so you can access the 30-daytime line. so i think d.b.i., d.p.h., they're helping us get the word out to their constituents, as well. >> are there any other comments

or questions from the commission? >> president matsuda, i'd like to [inaudible]. >> me, too. >> [inaudible]. >> hi, thanks. the commissioner in me wants to comment on this, a whole lot of things are positive. something that i was happy to hear about was since the prop h location processing [inaudible] that was implemented in january, 75% [inaudible] and 42% are women-owned businesses, and that is -- especially in the retail sector, these changes support our racial and social equity goals, and so i hope that our social equity team will recommend further updates to further these goals next year.

further, i want to acknowledge that a lot of this falls on staff, both the mayor's staff and the planning staff to develop those code changes, and i know how hard it can be. but i just want to say that we as commissioners get it in that as planning staff have had to adopt to covid related changes, including working from home, and i was so impressed and kind of blown away by the volume and breadth of work changes you brought to us at the last hearing. i thank you for your flexibility and hard workup to now and also in the future because these were all really important goals for us as a city to recover. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner foley? >> you know, for someone who actually operates multiple businesses and works with a bull of small businesses and

nonprofits, i think all of this work that you're doing is super great. i think trying to cleanup these things and trying to get these businesses open up in a reasonable time i think kind of helps the fabric of our neighborhoods and our community but also allows the planning staff to do work that's more interesting. i just want to say thank you for all this hard work, and i really appreciate it. >> thank you. any other commissioners that would like to make comments or questions? commissioner so, please use the chat if you would like to make some comments? >> hi. thank you, president matsuda. i'd just like to say a few words about the [inaudible] between the planning staff and oewd. i'm all for streamlining these processes and cutting down the red tape that we can possibly do to make sure that our small

businesses and community minority women-owned businesses can get their feet back on track. it is very important, and i'm really happy that we are progressing to this point where we have a really untilable robust staff to review projects, and we have track records in the past ten years that we prove we can do it, and we are now ready to make things happen faster, and we can allocate to other sources to more needed projects and with the limited resources that we have. so i would like to motion to approve this recommendation -- is it motion to approve, right, or is it discussion only? >> clerk: the recommendation is motion for approval. >> i so want to motion that. >> second. >> second. >> i think -- do we need, since

the modification that was outlined in the resolution is slightly different from what we have brought to you today, so i just want to make sure that we're approving that -- the modification that we had discussed to -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner foley. did you have additional comments that you wanted to make? >> no, i'm done. >> clerk: okay. very good.

if there's nothing further, there's been a motion that's been seconded to approve the modification made by board members and staff. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and concludes your ever-so-brief agenda today. thank you for joining us, and apologies for interrupting your afternoon. >> thank you so much for joining us.

[♪♪♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that

i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place

if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next

to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪♪♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in

this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪♪♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in

the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪♪♪]

>> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪♪♪] >> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for

san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and

i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to

have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and

see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence

development of our early learners. [♪♪♪] >> chair bustos: this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure for tuesday april 20, 2021. on behalf of the commissioners, welcome members of the public who are streaming or listening to us live as well as the staff and those who are presenting for today's meeting. following the guidelines set forth by local and state officials, the members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you all for joining us. please call the first item. >> clerk: thank you. the first order of business item

1, roll call. [roll call] commissioner brackett is absent. the next order of business is item 2 announcements. item a next regularly scheduled meeting will be held remotely on tuesday may 4, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. please be advised a member of the public has up to three minutes to make public comments on each agenda item unless the commission adopts a shorter period. you will be instruct to dial 415-655-0001, access code 187

562 2546. press the pound sign twice to enter the call. when the public comment section is open, you'll be asked to press star 3 to submit your request to speak. you will hear the following message. you have raised your hand to ask a question, please wait to speak until the host calls on you. when you hear your line has been unmuted, this is your opportunity to provide your public comment and you will have three minutes. please speak clearly and slowly. you will be placed back on mute once you are done speaking. you can stay on the line and continue to listen to the meeting or choose to hang up. if you are planning to provide a public comment on any item on today's agenda, it is recommended that you call the public line that i mentioned. it's also listed on the agenda. this will allow you to listen to the meeting rival and prevent you from experiencing a potential delay caused by live streaming. the meeting materials are

available on our website at sfocii.org. under commission then the public meetings tab. the next order of business is item 3, report on actions taken in previous closed session meeting. there are no reportable actions. the next order of business is item 4, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. next order of business is item 5, matters of new business -- there's no consent agenda item. item 5a conditionally approvalling combined basic concept schematic design. proving a density bonus allowing additional height, maximum dimension and density providing

notice this approval is within the skills of hunters shipyard a program e.i.r. hunters point shipyard area resolution number 12-2021. >> it was almost a year ago this month or exactly a year ago in april 2020 when the commission selected development team to begin predevelopment work on block 56 on hilltop portion of phase one. in that time, they developed a schematic design involving neighbors residents and the hunters point shipyard. today our housing team will lead this presentation and she'll be

joined by representatives of the development and design team. take it away. >> thanks, sally. good afternoon commissioners. i'm the senior development specialist with the housing division. as you know, ocii will fund 218 units in the hunters point shipyard affordable housing site. block 56 was offered for development. the project will be affordable family development. here you can see where the project sits on the hilltop in the shipyard, innes and coleman.

we issued request for proposal or r.f.p. in late 2018, mercy housing california along with -- we're selected develop block 56 after that competitive selection process. in 2020, ocii provided a predevelopment loan for the project. the team has been hard at work on the design and financing of the project. we're excited show you the results of the design process to date. you can see the entire development team in addition to mercy and sfhdc. it includes the property manager and kerman morris as the associate architect and baines nibbi as the contractor. the project is subject to ocii small business enterprise program construction workforce program and prevailing wages

policy. the developers continue to work in good faith to achieve the 50% s.b.e. goals for this project. to date the project exceeded 50% s.b.e. participation goal. baines nibbi the general contractor is a joint venture. here's a bit on the community outreach we've done since developer selection. we held two meetings with the hilltop residents to preview the design and seek their input. we presented the design to the shipyard c.a.c. they recommended that ocii commission approve this schematic design. i will turn the presentation over to talk about the project. i'll be back at the end to review the conditions of approval and density bonus. >> thank you.

good afternoon commissioners. i'm a project developer with mercy housing california. thank you so much for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon to seek schematic design approval. i'm pleased to be joined by colleagues working on this project. most of whom with us on the line today. this will have 73 total units for families ranging in sizes from studio to one five bedroom

units. it include community room, program courtyard offices for on site staff team, laundry room, one site manager unit, 46 persons spaces and additional parking for motorcycles. also one-to-one biking ratio. our design team will walk you through the lay out and talk more about the amenities. here's bit about our unit mix at block 56. ranging from studios to five bedroom units.

35% to 50% to san francisco a.m.i. i will hand it over to our project architect with vanmeter who will walk us through the design. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm pam goode an associate at vmwp. here we are at hilltop shipyard. hill point park is at the end of i necessary. -- innes.there's a playground ae street. the site has amazing views of the bay. please start the slide through video of our 3d model.

i will give a short introduction and the 3d model will come into view as i'm speaking. we'll be on this slide for a minute. from the beginning of the design process, the design and development team have had these four design goals as the forefront of our conversation. to provide a connection between the neighborhood, the development and the bay beyond. taking advantage of the beautiful site and bring the view of the bay into the building wherever possible. to provide a healthy building that promotes good health for all its residents. to continue the urban fabric on the hilltop by fitting the building in the surrounding context while creating homes for the residents will be proud to call home. sustainability goals include energy efficiency measures such as light facade colors, sun

shades and air ceiling. this all electric building with p.v. panels to offset the common load as possible. these design strategies have created a successful solution that we hope will enhance the life of future residents of 11 innes court and the current residents of the hilltop neighborhood. beginning here at the innes court and coleman, the corner of the building is accentuated with blue bay that move up the building flipping from one side of the window to the other. moving along innes court, you can see the building modulation that reflects the units inside with smaller blue bays that correspond to the neighbor building at 51 innes. as we turn on to kennedy place, you can see the entry to the garage below the courtyard.

the courtyard is divided into two areas. the outer area allows for play and activities outside the community room. under the canopy on the left side. the inner courtyard is contemplated with our family couch surrounded by small trees that allows for more intimate gatherings. these three residents here at the corner of the podium, are taken the view of the bay over the gantry crane behind us. below them are vines on the panels which create an extension of the hill below concealing the parking. the south facade is articulated with larger gray bays and smaller blue bays. the windows on the south and west fa said are shaded from the sun with aluminum sun shade providing added comfort for the

residents and adding energy efficiency of the units. one of the goals of the development is to provide a healthy building and this design is inviting and promote its use. we plan to work with a local hunters point bayview artist who will draw on the culture and history of the neighborhood with images that will be photographed and print end on glaze panels that will be integrated into the facade. light from inside and outside the building will filter through these images enhancing the interior and exterior experience which will connect with the development of the neighborhood

and the neighborhood to the development. as we approach the main entry, you can see there are two ways to access the main gate. either by way of the sloped sidewalk or stair framed by the landscape area. as we turn here, you can see how this -- you will be drawn into the courtyard and the bayview beyond. as we continue down coleman, you can see the mass is broken up with these smaller bays. turning back on to innes court, we will pass by four stoop entries which provides visual interest and appeal to the pedestrian experience. we can sit on our porch and watch the children play across the street or say hi to our neighbors as they walk their dogs to hill point park. there are canopies that provide cover and create a more pedestrian scale. as we conclude the video, like

to point out some of the materials of the building. on the corner, we have the random pattern that provides texture in contrast to the smoother stucco bays. you'll also see there are panels covering the roof that will offset a large percentage of the residential energy load of the building. this shows some of the materials on the left is the random board, which is a cement board panel

will different size battens at different dimensions it between them. they change every floor. there's this really nice texture and shadow created from floor to floor. again, that's in contrast to the smoother stucco bays, the blue is on the bottom. there's the gray and then we have some lighter cream areas at the stairs and some other areas. the middle top image is the board form concrete which wraps the parking garage area. we have aluminum sun shades at the bottom there that i mentioned on the south and west facades. the upper right image shows the vinyl windows that we'll be using. the bottom right image is the accent focal stair with the art

panels outlined. i like to introduce elizabeth kerman morris of kerman morris architect. >> thanks. when you come home with your groceries and you have a parking space, you drive down kennedy place in the parking garage. the two entry bedroom units with stoops hide the parking garage behind. if you live in one of these units you can enter your apartment from the outside entry stoop on innes court or you can enter from the corridor inside the building. if you're coming from the garage, you can access the corridor directly from the garage. if you coming down from the podium level open space you can

come down the elevatortor stairs. in it garage we have 46 parking spaces including van space, car share and ev parking as well as 47 motorcycle spots. there's bicycle storage room with 73 parking spaces and also on this level are the utility spaces, mechanical, electrical, maintenance, storage and trash. on the podium level, which is the second floor, as you approach the nain entrance on coleman street, you see landscape planters and wide stairs leading up to the entry gate. you have the choice of taking the ramp to the entry gate. the entry is framed by large opening in the bay beyond. there will be a card reader for secure entry. next to the main industry is a

feature staircase. if you live on this floor you can enter the corridor right next to entry gate and go in our unit. few of the units have a second entrance right on to the landscape courtyard. there's a child care unit nicely situated at this level facing the open space on two sides where the private patio and direct access to the courtyard and play space for easy pick up and drop off for parents. if you live on want of the upper floors you have a choice how to reach your front door. you can take the main stairs with the art glass wall, access right inside the entry gate or you can take the elevator at the inside corner of the north wing. there's a second stair that goes up to the fifth floor and down to the ground floor kennedy place. the south wing is the lobby, laundry, resident services and

community room which all open on to the courtyard. when you enter through the entry gate, you can come right into the lobby and check your mail or you can speak with the assistant property manager who has an office right off the lobby. the laundry room is in between the lobby and community room and opens up on to the courtyard so you can watch your kids play while you do your laundry or sit on a bench and check e-mail. the courtyard will be used for community events, celebrations and other formal and informal daily gathering. we designed it to be an extension of people's home. we understand that finding extra space and privacy can be challenging. residents will be encouraged to go outside and enjoy it. wifi will extend into the courtyard so everyone can use the space including teens.

the community room connects with the courtyard with double doors and awning to create shaded space to sit and enjoy the view. community room will be used for holidays, special events, parties and other community gatherings. there's a kitchen in the community room and pantry space so food can be storied for it food bank. it's the intent of sfhdc and mercy this community will be used independently throughout the day if planned formal gathering isn't going on. this is a typical floor, floors 3-5. the south wing has two and three bedroom units. there's one five bedroom unit on the fifth floor. the north wing is connected to the south wing by enclosed glass

corridor walkway. if you live on one of these upper floors, you have a choice how to go down to the podium level both in space and common room. you can take the elevator or one of two staircases. now i'll hand it back to elizabeth to talk about conditions of approval, density and next steps. >> thanks. i wanted to touch on our conditions of approval. there are variety of conditions of approval which allows staff to confirm consistencies. these conditions can include further development and refinement of materials, materials and color, trash and recycling, stoops along innes street and final landscaping and screening plan. the team is required to maintain the existing streetscape and the

existing number of trees. the team is also required to provide an architectural mock-up for ocii for review and approval. i wanted to touch on the density bonus which is part of the requested approvals today. pursuant to the redevelopment plan and design for development for phase 1 in the shipyard, ocii may approve density bonus for project with lower, moderate income residential units including development controls and density increase up to 25%. due to the relatively small capacity of this block, we knew it would be difficult to finance, staff anticipated use of the density bonus and ask developers to consider that in their r.f.p. responses. in this case, the developer is requesting density bonus to allow for height increase for two frontages of the building along innes and coleman.

this additional height is much less than an additional storage. it's within the existing range of 45 to 55-foot height limit. similar height increases have been approved on other hilltop blocks. maximum plan dimension is intended to ensure that taller buildings do not create bulky conditions. in this case, the diagnosed exceed -- that allows coleman street to provide physical separation from the adjacent development. that minimizes the impact of the

exceedance. density bonus requested is well within 81 dwelling units per acre. staff evaluated all of these specific requests and determine that they can conform to the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and they don't negatively impact the neighboring property. staff recommends approval of the request related to the density bonus. for wrap-up, i want to touch on the schedule. out of caution, ocii is working with the development team to establish a scope of additional

oil testing. we're finalizes that scope now and plan to bring it to the hunters point shipyard c.a.c. as informational item in june. we expect to get the testing in june or july and to have the report from the project environmental consultant by september or octobers of this year. we'll report back to the c.a.c. and commission on all of that. finally, we'll return to commission late this year, early next year for financing. which would allow us to start construction in the middle of next year and be complete approximately two years after that. one more quick thing before we wrap up, i i wanted to thank ocii design team along with jose campos who heads up that team. they did all the heavy lifting on the schematic design review for ocii.

that concludes our presentation. we're here to answer any questions. >> chair bustos: thank you. do we have anyone from the public who wish to speak. >> clerk: yes. before i do that, i can like to acknowledge that commissioner brackett did join us. she is on the phone. she is on. for members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should go ahead and dial 415-655-0001, enter access code, 187 562 2546, press the pound sign twice. if you like to provide a public comment, please press star 3 on your phone now. we have couple of people.

here is the first caller. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is tom. i live at 51 innes court. i have two concerns about this building. one is you're increasing the height to get the number of units which is fine with me. what my concern is with the solar panels on the roof, looks like there's going to be about 10 feet over the roof line. that is the major concern. the other concern is the use of kennedy place to access the parking area. that is a private driveway 51 innes court. if you're in contact with anybody from the h.o.a., i like to know who you're in contact with? at the last board meeting, none

of the board members were aware of any communications going on. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next caller. >> caller: good afternoon. interim executive director and commissioner. i'm dr. veronica honeycutt i'm the chair of the c.a.c. for the shipyard. i had the pleasure of speaking with you about block 52 and 54 recently. thank you for approving these projects. we want you to know that the c.a.c. for the shipyard fully supports this project, especially the 100% affordability aspect that provides critical housing opportunities for individuals and families. the c.a.c. is in support of the design and aesthetic of this project. we are happy to see the community continue to grow and

that inclusivity remains a high priority. we urge you to support this worthy project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair, at this time, there are any other members of the public wishing to comment on this item. >> chair bustos: thank you. hearing no further request to speak. i will close public comment. i will turn to my fellow commissioners. commissioner bycer? >> commissioner bycer: thank you chair bustos. couple of questions during our meeting two weeks agoing we talked about block 52 and 54, that included one five bedroom or one or two four bedroom units. they were making up for those size units. is that also the reason why we

have small number of four and five bedroom units in this project? >> that's right. it's for the same reason we have those units here. thank you. is there any -- are we confident those will be adequated built? is that the highest, best use? i could imagine that dividing in two air three bedroom units can house more people. i'm curious how those being used and ability to get filled appropriately. >> the unit mix overall, unit two bedroom units tend to have the most demand than three bedroom. because there's so few four and

five bedroom units, we don't expect that. we do have other developments. we don't have a problem filling them. >> commissioner bycer: there was one family child care unit in the building. is there anything special about that unit? is that unit like any other? you point to three bedroom on the podium floor of the courtyard level that was family care unit. is that designated? >> that specific unit is designated. in this case, we allow one unit to meet ideal speculations for a family child care unit. we try to put them adjacent to outdoor space. their living spaces is a little

larger. there's a few little things we do for that unit to make it more amendable to be a family child care unit. >> commissioner bycer: thank you. that's all the questions that i have now. >> chair bustos: thank you. commissioner scott? any questions or comments. >> commissioner ransom-scott: hu ge thank you, elizabeth. all of you for this presentation, thank you for really considering so much. the green grass, even if it's just a small partial. it makes a huge difference with the mental health of our community. people that move in, they need to see it. thank you that you considered the parking. inner city will never have enough. but to have some at all means a

lot as miguel has pointed out. we got seniors. we have families. it's a challenge when you don't have a parking place at all for your housing complex. i am grateful for the colorful staircase with the colorful windows. here again with that green grass, the colors and the sun, we know this community is the best when it comes to weather in the whole city. it can get very warm over that way and to have those colors, the windows and the projection is going to change a lot of attitudes. it's going to help with growth and development as they move forward in school. even the parents. it's going to make a huge

difference in this community. i'm pleased to see that. i'm thankful. dr. honeycutt came aboard to let us know about their support and the fact that we are here and able who hear another 100% affordable housing complex. with all this going on in the news we're waiting to hear, this lightens my heart. thank you all for your hard work. >> chair bustos: commissioner brackett? >> commissioner brackett: good afternoon everyone. i want to thank you guys for this presentation today. the 3d video was very helpful in being able to orient us on some of the amenities you guys discussed today. i'm really happen there's that outdoor space that is kind of going to be an extension of

community living space for lot of these residents. lot of times we build affordable housing and there isn't much space for families and so forth to convene. i'm happy with this project. i want to thank you for your presentation today. >> vice chair rosales: thank you. i was not able to see the video, i'm tech challenged environment this minute. descriptions i was able to follow very well. i concur with the comments of my fellow commissioners. i want to recognize very exemplary work of the team on the contracting and workforce compliance. these are pretty impressive numbers. seem everyone is coming forward with impressive number and participation. this one shows intentional

efforts. joint venture, 99% small business partnership, significant number of women owned businesses. i wanted to point that out. i do want to see if there's any comment by staff on the questions that was raised by the first speaker? >> sure. we have been in communications. i'm not sure what information was shared. we sent a letter in early february to the homeowners association and we -- we've heard back. we haven't finalized our discussions. we don't anticipate any issues based on the issues that were raised when we met with hilltop residents. we don't have issues resolving

those. >> vice chair rosales: and the issue about the solar panel and the height? >> yes. the solar panels are about 7 feet up off the roof. which is allowed. it's not counted towards the height. however, it's possible they already lowered a bit during design development. it was part of our review when we did the design review, they were always part of our review of the building and contacted the neighborhood. >> vice chair rosales: thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. i share everyone's comments about how wonderful this project is. it's good to see beautiful design coming to the neighborhood like that. with that, madam secretary -- first, may i have a motion for item number 5a?

>> i move that we approve the combine basic concept and schematic design of the agency housing partial at 11 innes court block 56 of the hunters point shipyard phase one. >> chair bustos: was that commissioner brackett seconding that? thank you. please take roll. >> clerk: please announce your vote when i call your name for 5a. [roll call vote] the vote is five ayes. >> chair bustos: motion carries. please call the next item.

>> clerk: 5b approving budget for the period july 1, 2021 and authorizing the executive director to submit the budget and interim budget to the mayor mayor's office and board of supervisors. discussion action resolution number 13-2021. >> at our last meeting we had a proposed budget. there are no changes since that time. i will continue to meet with the finance team to recap our budget and we will ask for your approval so we can move on to mayor's office and board of supervisors to culminate and final approval for our fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. >> good afternoon commissioners and chair bustos. i'm here before you for the

approval of our budget. there's no changes from the workshop that we had on the 6th. the department of finance approved april 15th without any changes. we are here for the approval of the budget for the period of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022 authorizing the executive director to submit the budget to the mayor's office on board of supervisors. interim budget is just a prorated amount based off the '21-22 budget. with just a reminder where we are in the process, we had the workshop before you on

april 6th. action item before you today and pending the approval, we'll mitt to to the mayor's office by may 1st. our 21-22 budget is $565.8 million, the primary sources are prompt tax fund balance and bonds. fund balance reflects funds that we received in prior years. this table at the workshop also. this is just our budget by our uses. this is category into our direct and indirect problematic expenditures. our primary uses are affordable housing and infrastructure and non-housing. it's primarily to show context to our 21-22 ask by comparing it

to our 2021 request by sources. change is due to the increase in the new affordable housing bond that we're issuing and increase in developer payments which will fund our transbay housing project. this table showing that same year over year comparisons. the change is due to an increase in our affordable housing offset by a decrease in our infrastructure reimbursements. again, our total budge is $565.8 million. in this table we have our affordable housing cost embedded into each project area. you can see that mission bay is the largest. this reflects the project relative to other project areas.

just in summary, our budget is $565.8 million. this is an increase of 7.3% from our 2021 budget. this is due to affordable housing loans we'll be issuing. we discussed our operating cost which is $19.1 million or 3.4% of the total budget. staff levels remain unchanged from the 2021 year. the budget includes five new affordable housing loans and issuance of $430.4 million to affordable housing bonds. ocii also manages seven f.t.e.s which are approved by voters in the districts. this is freight from the -- this is celebrate from the -- separate from the budget.

we have our new project manager who will speak about this in more detail at a future commission meeting. this is just the summary of our budget. it shows three outstanding bonds and seven of our current f.t.e.s. the action item before you is to approve budget for the period of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022 and offer executive director to enter a budget to the mayor's office and board of supervisors. pending your approval of the budget today, we will submit this to the mayor's office on may 1st and on to the board on

june 1st. with that, i will conclude the presentation. we have our project manager on the line if there are any further questions. thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. madam secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide comment, should call 415-655-0001, enter access code, 187 562 2546 followed by the pound sign. press star 3 to be placed in the queue. for members on the phone with us who like to provide public comment, you can press star 3 on your touch tone phone. we'll allow few moments for the public to call in.

it does not look like there's any member of the public wishing to comment. >> chair bustos: i will close public comment. i will ask my fellow commissioners if anyone has any questions or comments? commissioner bycer? >> commissioner bycer: thank you. i have one line of questioning. i'm all about government running efficiently, i think it's great to take pride in ocii fishing operation. i'm curious if you can comment on -- it's a $38 million annual increase from last year to 7.3% increase. we do not see staffing levels competent from last year. i want to make sure increase in budget that the team -- is that

the [indiscernible] >> yes. we are not changing our staffing levels from the prior year. the increase is just due to the affordable housing loans that we're issuing. this is something that -- we have a five-year outlook for our affordable housing. we know what's coming in the pipeline. these are projects that we are -- we have anticipated. we know what our staffing levels will be. we are conditional what the -- we are comfortable with the work level. we don't have any concerns. >> commissioner bycer: i want to make sure.

that's good news. that's all i have. >> chair bustos: thank you. we'll come back to commissioner scott. >> commissioner brackett: i want to say what an outstanding job the ocii team has been doing this past year during a pandemic just to be able to pick up and continue to do the work and push forward continuing to make sure that these affordable housing projects get put online as quick as possible. i did have some remarks regarding workforce development. i don't think that's appropriate now. that will come up in a future

session. i wanted to say thank you guys for your hard work and continue to push forward to make sure these projects are fully staffed by d.b.e.'s l.b.e.s and local hire initiatives. >> commissioner ransom-scott: th ank you. i'm sorry, i had muted myself. i concur with commissioner brackett. i'm so grateful for all this team is doing and the staffing level as well and how you're managing the needs for we the people. thank you so much. >> vice chair rosales: i agree with all the comments. i have no additional comments. thank you. >> chair bustos: may i have a motion for item number 5b.

>> vice chair rosales: i move. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i second that roll. >> clerk: commissioners please announce your vote when i call your name for item 5b. [roll call vote]. the vote is 5 ayes. >> chair bustos: motion carries. thank you. please call the next item. >> clerk: next order of business is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. >> chair bustos: do we have any speaker cards for this particular item? >> clerk: at this time, members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please call 415-655-0001. enter access code, 187 562 2546.

any members of the public who are on phone with us like to provide public comment urk you can press star 3 on your touch tone phone now. we'll provide a few moments for them to call in. i do not see any members of the public wishing to comment on this item. >> chair bustos: i will close public comment. please call the next item. >> clerk: next order of business is item 7, report of the chair. >> chair bustos: there's no report today. >> clerk: next or of business is

item 8, report of the executive director. madam interim director? >> i have no report today. >> clerk: next order of business is item 9, commissioner's questions and matters. >> chair bustos: commissioners, anybody have any burning questions that you may have? seeing none. please call the next item. >> clerk: next order of business is item 10, closed session. there are no closed session items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. >> chair bustos: we have made wonderful decisions today to help our city, our community as well as our agency do its business. i want to thank you all for your support. may i get a motion to adjourn our meeting today? >> commissioner ransom-scott: i move that the meeting be

adjourned. >> commissioner bycer: second. >> chair bustos: we are adjourned this meeting as of 1:55 p.m. thank you everyone. .

>> my name is angela wilson and i'm an owner of the market i worked at a butcher for about 10 years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been

one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to support butcher shops eat less we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a

son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and strong in san francisco labor is high our cost of good ideas we seal the best good ideas the profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us

to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love setting up and love knowing were any food comes from i do the lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my

lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn