iman, do we have another caller? >> yes. we do. barry, you've been permitted to speak. >> yes. thank you very much. i'm going to be late to work because i have to go drive and pick up my taxicab, but i am very much in agreement with a lot of the other speakers before me about the issues that they presented. the affordability of the garage is one of the issues that came up with shamman walton which was a problem there. i want to thank christopher to consider putting a taxicab at the museum so that we can stage there during the day for people visiting the museums or be available for people who are

coming out so we have a place to stop. i also -- it'd be great if we had the same access as the 44. if we can run the same route as the 44 bus through the park. i don't know if there's been incidents regarding taxicabs, bicycles, and pedestrians, but we are supposed to be more cautious, it's our jobs and our livelihoods to be cautious, to not have confrontations with other users of the park and it'd be great if you can definitely push through this to get in. if you need any help, sfmta and cta with getting this push through, it'd be great. i'm glad to hear that the taxi access ability staff of the mta has also been pushing for this. so regarding the access for the

seniors and disabled, i think it's important they are as close as possible to these venues. there are probably going to be some events at night at the academy of sciences, so the question is whether we'd be able to queue up there when these events end or whether you're going to continue to allow a lot of t.n.c. drivers to get lost. the last point, i think one of the council members pointed out about having better signage so we don't get lost. i think putting way finding signs to deal with the fact that more streets are going to be closed than open that it would be great if you actually improve the signage for getting to the amenities in the park. thank you for your time. now i've got to get ready for work. >> thank you, barry. anybody else, iman? >> right now, it does not

appear that there's anyone else indicating that they'd want to make public comment. as a reminder to the public if you want to make public comment and you're on the phone you and dial star 9. if you're on the zoom app, you can click on the three horizontal dots and you have the option to raise your hand on the desk top, you will see a raised hand button. >> thank you for that. and there's going to be another opportunity for public comment after the presentation from the mayor's office on disability. nicole, are you ready for the director's report? >> yes. i can proceed with that. if we're finished, we can thank our previous guests for attending. >> okay. thank you both for -- it was clearly a very interesting and dynamic presentation and,

again, i appreciate the process. very much so. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you. i think we're ready. >> okay. so i'm up next. >> yep. >> great. okay. so this portion of the agenda is the director's report to the mdc. you'll have a full report that's published to our website and it will go out to distribution and will also be provided to the council. in the interest of time, i'm going to highlight some of the most pressing matters i am very pleased to once you all know

that m.o.d. has a new staff member. we are very pleased to welcome [inaudible] john cost to our team as our office and communications coordinator. he's waving right now. for those of wow remember nathan webb in this position. john is assuming some of those responsibilities and so we're very pleased to have you, john. welcome. thanks for joining the meeting today if you get a sense of what the m.d.c. is all about. so thank you if for being here. >> thank you for having me join the team. >> great to have you. so now what i'd like to do is let the council and public know about some other things that we've been working on since the last meeting. so it's been a very busy month as you might imagine. the most eminent thing that is

on top of mind for most folks as of today is the shared spaces the community engagements that we've had from the temporary program. i'm not going to get into the details of that in this report, but just some of the things we've done in the past month and reached out. so first of all, the language in and of itself emphasizing language as part of the revised legislation which is legislative version three. so if you're interested, can you find it there. i do believe legislation was

sent to the council before this meeting. we have also been able to do some outreach to talk about accessibility with sfmta board member. we've talked to the north beach business association. the paratransit coordinated council. last friday at this time, we talked with the age and disability friendly work group. we did the work group these part of the age and disability task force which you may remember is working on the goals and task force of eight different domains. i would encourage you to invite age and disability group back for a presentation at some point in the future. yesterday, also, we talked to the transit justice coalition of senior disability action. so we've had a lot of

engagement. there are still a lot of questions that i know that the public has and we're committed to bringing all of the accessibility information together in a way that is easy to understand and where it can be accessed in one place. so we're working on that as a very important action item for us. the item of shared spaces if you're interested in tracking it is scheduled to be heard as item number three on land use and transportation committee meetings tomorrow. if you would like to give public comment or would like to follow the legislation, that is the next time it will be heard. so this coming monday in the afternoon. the meetings generally start at 1:30 and the item is number 3. so i wanted to just highlight that. >> nicole, could you please

repeat the committee that is will be heard in. >> land use and transportation. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. next, i wanted to emphasize new topic. we also had a good meeting as part of the senior and disability coalition of the business zero working group. i think i'm getting that acronym confused, but it is a group of folks who work specifically on vision zero related efforts and we heard some preliminary information about peoples' reactions to slow streets and i really want to encourage the council to consider slow streets as an agenda item for if not the next meeting, a meeting very soon because decisions are being made on slow streets right now. i would also like to emphasize

that we are in conversation with our colleagues both with the school district and also with the department of children, youth, and families on how to better improve the accessibility of the summer together programs. i'm encouraged with the conversations that we're having, that is another topic that the council may want to learn more about. this is the first program of its kind, the city, the program received $24 million grant to provide summer camps to kids and it's a great program, but we're working on the accessibility elements towards that. you'd be interested in hearing more about that i think. i'm also pleased to say, new topic that the city looking at

our accessibility guidelines for policy that includes website accessibility and, finally, i wanted to emphasize a few things that are happening right now we are still in a pandemic unfortunately. we've made some great strides. i just wanted to emphasize a couple things. first, during this meeting, we have completed a video entirely in asl about vaccine access and home bound access. and i'm very excited to share that video, so we'll be doing that as part of this meeting and then i also want to emphasize that our efforts now have shifted in terms of disability access to really helping the home bound program understand who may still be at

home and needing access to a vaccine. if you or someone you know is in that situation to make sure that we know that you or someone who is home bound and still needs a vaccine or knows someone who is. so please do take advantage of that because people will come to you. so far specific to individual business, we've had 133 scheduled. and that concludes my report for today. >> chairman: you have been very busy. >> it has been a busy month, yes. >> and, i just want to congratulate and acknowledge your leadership in our vaccine and covid efforts in the city. i know what an integral role you've played and it must be nice to see a little bit of

light at the end of the tunnel. >> it is. thank you very much for saying that. thank you very much. >> and we appreciate you. moving along. does anybody from the council have any comments or questions for nicole? seeing none. i'm going to move into general public comment. iman, do we have any outstanding calls or comments? >> at this time, i do not see anybody indicating they want to make public comment. as a reminder, you can press star 9 to indicate you'd like to make a comment or use the raised hand feature in zoom. >> i'm just going to give a pause and see if we get any kind of response. >> this is for items that are not on today's agenda. so if it there's something that the public would like to bring

up that we haven't addressed today, now is the time to do that. >> thanks for that. while we're waiting, can we go to correspondence received by m.o.d. in this past month or all correspondence? >> this is deborah kaplan and there is no correspondence this past month directed specifically to the counsel. and we don't have any people calling in so i would like to move to adjourn. would somebody like to second? >> i need somebody to second adjournment? >> i second. >> thank you alex.

any opposed? hearing none. >> i would like to say thank you to all of our participants. i think this was a really productive meeting and i wish you all a very nice weekend. healthy weekend and we will look forward to seeing you in june. good-bye everyone.

>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive.

you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash

or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you

know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now. >> my name is alan schumer. i am a fourth generation san franciscan. in december, this building will be 103 years of age. it is an incredibly rich, rich history. [♪♪♪]

>> my core responsibility as city hall historian is to keep the history of this building alive. i am also the tour program manager, and i chair the city advisory commission. i have two ways of looking at my life. i want it to be -- i wanted to be a fashion designer for the movies, and the other one, a political figure because i had some force from family members, so it was a constant battle between both. i ended up, for many years, doing the fashion, not for the movies, but for for san franciscan his and then in turn,

big changes, and now i am here. the work that i do at city hall makes my life a broader, a richer, more fulfilling than if i was doing something in the garment industry. i had the opportunity to develop relationships with my docents. it is almost like an extended family. i have formed incredible relationships with them, and also some of the people that come to take a tour. she was a dressmaker of the first order. i would go visit her, and it was a special treat. i was a tiny little girl. i would go with my wool coat on and my special little dress because at that period in time,

girls did not wear pants. the garment industry had the -- at the time that i was in it and i was a retailer, as well as the designer, was not particularly favourable to women. you will see the predominant designers, owners of huge complexes are huge stores were all male. women were sort of relegated to a lesser position, so that, you reached a point where it was a difficult to survive and survive financially. there was a woman by the name of diana. she was editor of the bazaar, and evoke, and went on and she was a miraculous individual, but she had something that was a very unique. she classified it as a third i.

will lewis brown junior, who was mayor of san francisco, and was the champion of reopening this building on january 5th of 1999. i believe he has not a third eye , but some kind of antenna attached to his head because he had the ability to go through this building almost on a daily basis during the restoration and corrects everything so that it would appear as it was when it opened in december of 1915. >> the board of supervisors approved that, i signed it into law. jeffrey heller, the city and county of san francisco oh, and and your band of architects a great thing, just a great thing. >> to impart to the history of this building is remarkable.

to see a person who comes in with a gloomy look on their face , and all of a sudden you start talking about this building, the gloomy look disappears and a smile registers across their face. with children, and i do mainly all of the children's tours, that is a totally different feeling because you are imparting knowledge that they have no idea where it came from, how it was developed, and you can start talking about how things were before we had computer screens, cell phones, lake in 1915, the mayor of san francisco used to answer the telephone and he would say, good morning, this is the mayor.

>> at times, my clothes make me feel powerful. powerful in a different sense. i am not the biggest person in the world, so therefore, i have to have something that would draw your eye to me. usually i do that through color, or just the simplicity of the look, or sometimes the complication of the look. i have had people say, do those shoes really match that outfit? retirement to me is a very strange words. i don't really ever want to retire because i would like to be able to impart the knowledge that i have, the knowledge that i have learned and the ongoing honor of working in the people's

palace. you want a long-term career, and you truly want to give something to do whatever you do, so long as you know that you are giving to someone or something you're then yourself. follow your passion and learn how to enrich the feelings along the way.

>> at the controls is the legal assistant and i am the board executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments presenting before the board this evening.

the board meeting guidelines are following. turn off or silence all phones and electronic devices. department respondents each are given seven minutes and three minutes for rebuttal. people reaffiliated with these parties must include comments within these periods. time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or a large number of speakers. for jurisdiction request the parties are given three minutes each. the legal assistant will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. three votes are required to grant jurisdiction request. if you have questions about requesting rehearing or schedule e mail the board of appeals at

sfgov.org. every effort is made to replicate the in person hearing process. to enable public participation sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live. we will have ability to receive public comment for each item on the agenda. we are providing closed captioning. to watch on tv go to channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on friday at channel 26. a link is found at sfgovtv. now public comment can be provided in two ways. you can join the zoom meeting by computer. click on the link or call in 16699006833. enter the id 882. [ inaudible ] we are streaming the number on

the screen. to block your phone number dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for your item to be called and dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hands to speak. you will be brought in when it is your turn and you have two to three minutes depending on the length of the agenda. you get a 30 second warning before time is up. there is a delay between what is broadcast. it is important that you turnoff the volume on your computers or tv. if participants need disability accommodation or technical assistance make a request to the board legal assistant or send an e-mail to board of appeals. i want to emphasize that the chat function cannot be used for public comment or opinions. it is for technical assistance

only. we will swear in or affirm all of those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without an oath. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight raise your right hand and say i do after you are sworn in. thank you. if you are participant not speaking put your zoom on mute. 1. general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter with in the board jurisdiction not on the calendar tonight. any member of the public to speak on an item not on tonight's calendar. if so, raise your hands. i do not see any hands raised. we are going to move to item 2.

>> do we have a hand raised? >> yes. >> i don't see it. >> it is justin zucker. >> go ahead with general public comment. >> good afternoon. on behalf of the ownership of 1586 market street. i am here to update the appeal for smoke and odor emissions this board granted. the owner agreed to install the control unit. it was submitted to d.b.i. this board imposed penalties on the certificate of final completion is not obtained within 12 weeks of permit issuance.

unknown at the time of the appeal hearing when the timeline imposed was the time for the. [indiscernable] this zoning administrator requested a sound barrier wall to mitigate noise from the equipment. the sound wall barrier was obtained and the wall is ordered. some of the parts are coming from china antid up in the pandemic. the sound wall barrier is to arrive in nine weeks and will be installed on the roof with pollution control. the permit for fire alarm is yet to be issued. it is caught up in the process which is challenging. without the fire alarm permit we cannot obtain the unit.

we request the court reconsider the imposition of penalties not accrue until three weeks after installation of the fire alarm permit. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment, general public comment? if so please raise your hands. >> julie, my hand raising is not working. i have to disclose that i have a conflict with the item just mentioned. had i known this item would have been surfacing in public comment i would have left the scene. >> it is fine. we are not taking action. he is just giving an update to the board. >> thank you very much. it is important for the record.

>> thank you, vice president swig. >> no other general public comment. we are moving to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. i don't see any commissioner comments or questions. item 3. adoption of minutes. before you are the minutes of the may 5, 2021 board meeting. >> do we have any changes or additions? do we have a motion to approve the minutes. >> i may being that motion, please. >> any public comment on vice president swig's motion to adopt minutes? seeing none on that motion, president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 3-0. the minutes are adopted. now we are on item 4. it is a special item. presentation by the san

francisco planning department on its implementation approach for streamlined review of housing projects under senate bill 35. the presentation will include overview, summary of the projects processed as well as brief overview of assembly bill 831 which revised and updated sb35. thank you to the planning department forgiving this presentation. i am not sure who is speaking first. ms. conner. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff. i am joined by my colleague conner. the planning department appreciates this opportunity to present to the board of appeals on senate bill 35. planning implementation as well as reviewing the project

approved. sb35 was effective january 2018. it is a review of projects providing affordable housing generally above 50%. it is based upon the regional housing needs allocation and housing production and applies statewide. this legislation to the approval in the cities not needing regional housing needs production goals. san francisco has been meeting the above moderate income 120% and above. it has not been meeting the targets in moderate, low and very low housing. some of these benefits of sb35 is ministerial approval to remove requirement for the california environmental quality analysis. associated with planning

entitlement. removes conditional use or comparable entitlements and strict review of approval. 60 to 90 days depending on the project size or 90 to 180 for design depending on the project size. some of the eligible criteria must be consistent, meet certain affordability requirements. above 50%. it must net at least two dwelling units, located in the zoning district permitting residential uses. must meet certain locational standards, not results in demolition of historic structures. it must meet prevailing wages as well as skilled and trained work force requirements and other

requirements. the objective standards are require no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are verifiable by reference to an external and uniform badge mark. some objectives of the standards exposure, open space and non objective are design guidelines, preservation design. the challenges require discretionary action. some project types are 100% affordable as well as mixed income projects. 50% are affordable. remaining 50% could be market rate. the review process and timeline. project sponsors will prepare building permit application and submit sb35 application and may

submit individually requested state and city bonus application if they are also using the state and city bonus in addition to sb35. no neighborhood notification is required. no discretionary review for sb35 projects. planning staff must derm eligibility within 60 days. if it is 150 units or fewer. within 90 days if it contains more than 150. planning staff must complete oversight within 90 days with 150 units or fewer and within 180 days more than 150 units. implementation strategy is is rolled out in december 2017. issuing the informational packet

january of 2018 when it became effective and creating working group meetings to look at the certifications of this bill. since this implementation of this legislation, 16 projects have been approved since january of 2018 which has resulted in 1980 total housing units added to housing stock. this map shows 16 projects approved since january of 2018. they are generally concentrated on the east side. there are some on the west side. now we have a few examples of projects approved. 130 units. this is 100% affordable. this is land dedication for the

project. it proposed pdr and a.m.i. from 30 to 80%. 2340 san jose 121 units child care and commercial, 100% affordable. a.m.i. 35 to 100%. 1064 through 1068 mission street. 153 adult studios and senior studios. 100% affordable including training and a.m.i. 50%. twenty-fourth street is affordable. units were affordable to

homeless seniors age 62 and older at below 50% a.m.i. 457 through 75 proposed 270 group housing with the 16 story building. this was mixed income. it was 53% affordable and the a.m.i. from 50 to 110% a.m.i. >> 833 bryant street. 100% affordable without gap funding. a.m.i. from 50 to 60%. 4840 mission. 137 dwelling units. 100% affordable with a.m. i between 30 to 100% a.m.i.

>> 831 is another bill that became eteftic in 2020. updates with a modification tab for existing development projects. local governments must approve and construct public improvements without precluding development approved. it applies statewide. to ensure compliance with ab831. they hope to track the permits. skywalk legislation, street trees with remove and install new. on street loading appealable to the board of appeals. this will confirm many of the projects in development is not precluded to meet the intent of sb35. this concludes the staff presentation. we are happy to answer questions. we want to thank you for this

time. >> thank you. we will hear from president honda. >> i had a question. a couple projects you mention have been before this body already. we are trying to get used to how this works. couple of questions. one, does the project need to be coded compliant or can you do sb35 with variances and exceptions? >> a project does need to meet all of the objective standards. project must be code compliant. now a project is also pursuing the program that we mentioned earlier. there is a process where waivers can be sought. those code requirements could be under that program. that scenario would be deemed

code compliant. if the program. [indiscernable] it would meet all objectives. >> next question. considering this is fairly new legislation and you guys are basically reacting to the density bonus and 100% affordable housing. do you have a specific department? since there is a short timeframe, is that derailing current projects in the queue because you have to meet the sb35 deadline? >> these deadlines are state mandated. they have to be prioritized. what we try to do is we have a housing advisory team so we try to coordinate a lot of the discussions before these projects are form ally submitted. when they are the planning division can continue the review and process as it would

for any other project. we are required to prioritize this. we try to front end that. >> do you have planners that are just sb35 at this point? do they get pushed in front of everyone waiting two or three years? >> we don't have any sb35 specific planners. these projects are reviewed by the current planning division. we do have our housing advisory team which consists of kate conner and myself and carley grove providing assistance to the current planners. we recognize they already have substantial volumes of work. how projects are assigned is based on the quads of the city. >> is 430 the smallest project you have for the density bonus.

>> which project. >> 430 eddy? >> that is four unit project, i believe. >> 18 or 21. >> from was one other project smaller only four units but i do believe that it is stalled at this point. they did receive the approval from planning. i don't think they are moving forward. >> thank you very much. excellent be presentation. you are amazing. thank you very much. i think commissioner swig had a question and then commissioner chang. >> i don't know if my raised hand is working. >> it is working now. >> thank you. we had a highly debated item a couple weeks ago, and where the public members of the public

were not happy. by the way, i am not going to question any of the things that have been done and how they have been set up. this is not about that. this is about communication, how we can communicate to the public, how planning can communicate to the public about how these projects work. when we had this appeal a couple weeks ago, it was -- there were unhappy neighbors. we had to tell them this is sb35 and it comes with different rules. they had very little palette for accepting what we were trying to tell them. with the fast tracks which is involved here which you so

completely put in front of us, how do -- where does the public fit in so they don't feel like they are being misled, so they don't feel like they are manipulated, so they are happy with the project, especially if they live next door? what are the communication processes? i see that our appeals are really limited to very small, small things. that is okay. how can we get away from people making an appeal, coming in and basically getting feisty with the board of appeals when we can't do anything? >> they were upset about the lack of notification. >> i would say a broad-based

about everything. lack of understanding of sb35 was the issue. how do we proactively serve the public as members of government agencies to give them some satisfaction or communication so that we can mitigate the upset or make them understand? or have them understand? can't make them do anything. >> that is a great question. the fact they have this avenue to appeal the permits and this structure and public forum speaks to the importance of the board of appeals. there isn't, as we mentioned earlier, these are administratively reviewed, no public notice. the first 15 projects. we are getting used to it. we are accustomed to being discretionary in san francisco. i think it is a great point.

commissioner swig that we have to continue educating the public on this new senate bill and state law. it has implications as to how they can be engaged. it is important that there is still this appeal process to express their opinion and concern. >> i would really suggest that planning and those responsible for these projects put themselves in the position of the neighbors when the neighbors get a surprise that they are getting a major building put next to them, and you know what happens about surprises. most of the time they are not greeted warmly, and when --

especially in these circumstances where there might be a perception of invasion of a traditional neighborhood, the immediate response from the neighbors is to start punching and respond not so sweetly. out of fear, lack of information, lack of education. maybe because they simply don't like it. i think it would be -- although there is no formal notice requirement as part of this legislation, i would think it would behoove planning for everybody's quality of life, including the board of appeals, that a formal method of communicating an upcoming

project is available to the public. i think that this would stop a lot of problematic feedback that we all might perceive. just due to the lack of knowledge of what sb35 is as well as common courtesy of invasion what used to be a neighborhood that looked one way is about to look another without any choice. that would be my two cents on it. it is a difficult thing. >> commissioner chang, do you have a question? >> thank you both for putting this presentation today. it was well thought out. i think following the case that commissioner swig highlighted, it was clear that because sb35

and the implementation is new that it was important to take as many opportunities to educate the to be luck as possible. board of appeals is one of those venues to do so. to highlight commissioner swig and honda's point. noticing is a concern. i having been in that capacity to understand it is not as simple as that. i think what the public -- it would be helpful to realize the planning department is imminenting agency. -- implementing agency. the planning department is responsible for regulating what is coming from the state. little control the planning department has. i do think as public servants it is our due to took place took -- our duty.the whole purpose os

acknowledgment we have a housing crisis. the state is endeavoring to do what it can to solve it. that means allowing for the approval and construction and development of as much affordable housing as quickly as possible. there is very little that bodies like ours can do. very little discretionary review and very little the planning department can do. you get a project and have a short amount of time to review. provided it complies with regulations the developer can go forth and develop the property. i am wondering in light of this and how we collectively have agency. is it setting up a page on the website that is like for people who -- there is a list that what they signed up.

maybe sb35 web serve. i am mindful of what is on your plate. i am trying to think of ideas. all of the buildings you highlighted produce hundreds of additional housing. however, they are biggings. they are like definitely it would change the landscape of the neighborhood in any event. for 20 units of housing or 100 units. it is a big deal. all of the typical mechanisms that members of the public are used to receiving for coming to terms with the huge developments are gone. there is no hearing really like requirement of notification. the case commissioner swig mentioned. there was notice. the developers did acknowledge the fact that people needed to be notified and which is how members of the public learned

about it and tried to negotiate in good faith parts of the project. at the end of the day the housing is permitted and they can still develop regardless of how much the project but to the expense people can grow more and more comfortable as much, i don't know, tools at their disposal means we can think about creatively think about or maybe just, i don't know. public information campaigns that go out everyone's in a while. the purpose was to provide an opportunity to educate the public and remind folks that this is the piece of legislation that we are just recipients of and need to shepard forth. that is what i wanted to say.

thank you. >> sorry. i know we have a long agenda. one quick question to the planning staff. when these sb35 projects come before us and they have to be code compliant. there is another thing they may not have to be coped compliant. what tools can this board have if we want to challenge as sb35 project? >> i think this board would have to find sb35 projects. ineligible if the planning department miss characterized eligibility or clarify the project was not compliant. point of clarification if the project is pursuing sb35 and seeking waivers. it is code compliant. i just want to clarify that.

there would not be an sb35 project before the board of appeals that was not code compliant. >> that is what we are trying to figure out. prevailing wage. for the same you can builds at $6 million. prevailing wage will be 11 to $13 million for the same building. thank you both for your presentation. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i do see a hand raised. >> hi, thank you. i am robert frukmam district 5. a question for the planning

staff. affordable units built in san francisco since january of 2018 through sb35. what percent of affordable units built since january of 2018 were built using the sb35 process? thank you. >> do you want to respond? >> yes, i think the projects were still being built. i don't believe a lot of the projects have been built. you might want to clarify your question, sir. does the planning department wish to answer that? >> it is public comment, you are not reresponsible to. >> it is a clarification. projects approved. to your point they too not mean they have already been constructed. we don't have that statistic

right now. >> thank you. thank you very much to the planning department for taking time-out of your schedule. >> thank you for having us. >> have a good evening. >> okay we are moving to item 5. this is appeel 21-015. noel frelicot at 24/7 2 vallejo street. appealing the issue answer on february 22, 2021 of alteration permit. this is permit 2020-12/30 slash 1935. on april 21, the board voted to continue to may 5th so the parties can work on a solution and address the concerns raised by acting deputy duffy and deputy zoning administrator

sanchez. may 5th they vetted to continue to may 19th to finalize the revised plan. president honda, reminder regarding disclosure. >> thank you. i am a partner in a project that hired the law firm. they are appearing before the body this evening. it will not affect my decision. >> we do have revised plans in. each party has three minutes to address the board with no rebuttal. we will hear from appellant first. his attorney is here. >> good evening. i am a land use attorney and i represent the frelicots.

thank you for providing revised plans. my clients appreciated the opportunity to review them. i think that we have come to an agreement and we were ready to be done with this a couple weeks ago. i think our position is still the same. we support the three foot set back supported by staff as well. the only other comment is that my clients would like to ensure that no erosion of existing footings occurred during excavation of any new footings on the property. plans show new footing at the ground floor light well and it would not be below the frelicot's footing. should that change i request my client be notified. on sheet three north of the light well. it is near the property line.

we would like to see a condition being included to provide notice with notification as excavation proceeds any conditions discovered that would require the new footing to be below the existing footings. other than that, we appreciated being able to work on this matter and with that i respectfully request that the appeal be granted. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. >> thank you. good evening, president honda, members of the board. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. everything that was stated by apple plant's attorney is true.

we have -- appellant's attorney is true we have an agreement. we were revising and updating the plans to address issues and requests by planning and building. those have been addressed. ms. hu brought in professionals to scrub these plans and spend a significant amount of time with them. that has been done. they are in very good shape. i believe mr. sanchez and mr. duffy will concur that they have reviewed the plans, given them their blessing. we are ready to move forward with this. it is a significant amount of time for anyone. we have gotten there. as to the condition, it is really not necessary. the footing work being proposed

is not putting the neighbors' foundation or footing at risk in any way. in the project were changed in any way and for that to change it would be subject to review by the building department if we were going below and had to touch the neighbor's property in any way, we would need their permission to do so. we think they are fully protected and the condition isn't necessary. we simply ask that the board allow this to move forward subject to the new or reviced plans submitted. we are available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> it looks like you have an agreement and i think you had an agreement last time as well. it looks like we would grant appeal and condition it subject to the plans.

what is the date of plans or specific pages, counselor? >> they are dated may 19th. you submitted today. >> any specific pages that you want? >> the entire set. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> scott sanchez planning department. we have an agreement. we received revised plans last thursday to address the planning department's comments on the plan. the set today submitted on the may 19th addresses building department issues. i will let deputy director duffy speak to that. the plans are code compliant and we ask the court grand appeal and add don't the plans

submitted today. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspections. >> joe duffy. as mr. sanchez stated, we have reviewed the revised plans. i had to speak to mr. tommy today. we are happy to take plans into dba for review. there may be some additional work required inside the building envelopes. there is a possibility that the housekeeping unit bigger. d.b.i. might have that third unit. the three unit building which requires sprinklers on a separate permit. a pre-application meeting before

this permit is submitted. for now, i think the plans are acceptable, a lot better than they were. i appreciate the hard work that kept them to this point. i am glad the neighbors seem to be in agreement. that is a good thing. in relation to the foundation issue, i agree with mr. tommy, that wall will be set away from the property line. i would advise permit holder to get d.b.i. involved before the excavation takes place and invite neighbor in to look at it. if you are close to the property line it definitely is a very good point to bring up. it definitely needs to be something that they should be aware of. i do think it is far enough away from the property that it is not going to be an issue. better to check. i am available for questions. thank you.

>> i don't see questions. your hand was up. >> mr. duffy, we don't have to worry about the request by the appellant by the footings. from my experience and your advice reon other projects, you have indicated that this is something that is a standard operating procedure with d.b.i. can we give comfort without taking specific action on the request of the appellant to let them know this is a priority of d.b.i. and you will take care of it as you suggested? >> yes, vice president swig.

very good question. the building code addresses it anyway. we do look for it. this is a good heads up of this process in the hearing to bring it up. i think the code addresses it very well. contractors are aware. the only time it is a problem is when someone gets ahead of themselves. due to the building permit i don't think anyone will do that. i would recommend that the permit holder get an extension when they get the permit ready to go. when that time comes get the building inspector and have them look at it. if the neighborhood is a concern contact d.b.i. and we are more than happy to look into it anytime. >> thank you for that answer. >> any public comment? if so, please raise your hand.

any public comment? okay. i don't see any hands raised. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> unless anyone has further comment, i would like to make a motion to grant the appeal subject to and add don't revised plan set dated 5/19/21. >> what basis are you making the motion? agreement of the parties and code compliant. >> yes, that you. both parties agreed and it is code compliant. >> we have a motion from president honda to grant appeal and issue permit on the condition it requires adoption every viced plans dated may 19, 2021. this represents agreement of the parties and makes the property code compliant. commissioner chang.

>> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> okay. that motion carries. 3-0. thank you. parties will work together. we are now moving on to item 6. this is the jurisdiction request no. 21-4. subject property at 26 5:00 street. letter from jane flurry asking the board take jurisdiction over variance 2017-012887var issued on june 15. appealened on june 25th and filed on april 23, 2021. determination holder is golden properties llc. determination description is to construct a four story two family home at the rear of the through lot and tenant improvements and reconfiguration of the building fronting oak street.

25% of the total lot depth at grade level and at each succeeding story of the required rear yard of 30 feet. the proposed rear yard structure will extend to the rear property line and therefore a rear yard variance is requested. we will hear from the requester first. ms. flurry, welcome. >> i am here to ask to be allowed to appeal the zoning variance granted on the 15th of june. i was not notified when this decision letter was issued. i was told i would be but i wasn't. i didn't file the appeal on time. i don't know why. number one,. [indiscernable]

>> we will pause your time. >> okay. that is not what i was expecting. this is the variance decision. you will notice the contract was given. the project planner is david winslow. i think that may offer a clue as to what happened. in any case i wasn't notified, my neighbors weren't notified. i had a statement from my neighbor, mandy. number two. that is my neighbor, mandy, she put her name on the list for notification. she heard nothing from them either. we have been in regular touch

about it. we didn't know. that is really all there is to say about it, i think. the opposition in the neighborhood. i would very much ask the board to take jurisdiction to allow me to appeal this decision and present my arguments at the appeal. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the attorneys for the determination holder. >> yes, thank you. john kevlin on behalf of the determination. >> can i pause your time to make disclosure on this? >> no you did not. go ahead. >> i hired -- i am a partner in the law firm that hired this law

firm. their appearance will not have any effect on my decision. sorry i missed that disclosure. >> go ahead. thank you. very briefly. i don't think the facts are in dispute here. i will just read the standard of review for jurisdiction request which is intentional. the city inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing appeal. i will mention we have an appeal hearing for the site permit for the project scheduled for the june 9th hearing in a couple weeks as well. i will defer to planning department staff to speak to the rest of the issues. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. the subject variance was noted was issued on june 15, 2020.

it has a 10 day appeal to the board of appeals. rear yard open space and variances for the project. first held april 25, 2019. the zoning administrator took the matter under advisement. notification went out over the summer of 2019 and discretionary review was filed last year. there was a joint review and variance hearing. at the hearing the planning commission approved the project and variance granted. the requester in this case jurisdiction was the dr on the project. i couldn't find any evidence that the variance was sent to them. unfortunately, the staff, ms. fahey is no longer with the department so we were no longer able to discuss it with her. mr. winslow handled it. they requested a copy of the

variance. that is our procedure when variances you need to request a copy of the decision letter. i take it that the jurisdiction requests were made and staff did not send it to them. the variance decision letter we have evidence it was mailed to the project team but not to anyone else. we don't have any -- staff is unable to find sign in sheets from the variance hearings. i don't doubt that the requester is telling the truth here. it does appear there is the possibility that there was an oversight unfortunately and the city did make a mistake here. the associated building permit was issued just last month and appeal to the board of appeals on june 9th. i am available for questions the

board may have. >> they said they requested notification. is that a requirement or is that something they requested and you guys provide? >> the decision letter doesn't automatically get sent out to the public. typically someone signs the sign in sheet to request a copy of the decision letter and i believe that the jurisdiction that they requested it and it does appear that staff did not send it to them. we don't have evidence staff sent the decision letter to them which would be our process once the request is made to have a copy sent to them. >> okay. thank you. i am assuming the department of building inspection does not want to weigh in on this? is that correct? deputy director duffy?

>> correct. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? if so please raise your hand. okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> would any commissioner like to start? >> sure. the city admitted there was a flaw and therefore as the city admitted there was a flaw. i think that there is jurisdiction request is valid. this is like the first time this has ever happened for years and years, i think. because planning department is generally much better than this. i see that the request is valid and i think i would support that. >> would you like to make a

motion, vice president? >> help me. >> it would be that -- >> we have never done this. i have no idea. >> you are going to grant jurisdiction on the grounds the city inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal as we did not notify her of the issuance of the variance decision. >> you did a great job, president honda making the motion, thank you very much. >> who is making this motion? >> vice president swig. >> we have a motion from vice president swig to grant the request on the basis that the planning department caused requester to be late because it did not notify her of the issuance of the variance. >> i have a clarifying question. there is an appeal filed against

the building permit implementing the decision. if we grant this jurisdiction request, would we hear those items? >> she will have five days to file an appeal until monday. once that is filed we will consolidate is items to be heard together. >> on the motion from vice president swig, president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> okay. that motion carries 3-0. ms. flurry, you had a question about the process? >> yes. i am surprised that these are consolidated. it is my understanding these are separate. there is a complex thing to present concerning the variance. not enough time to cover it. >> you will get double the time. you will get double time.

you will have two separate appeals. >> not the same day? >> that is what i meant. they will be heard at the same time but double the time. >> reach out to me for clarification. >> thank you very much. we will talk to you in the next five days. okay. we are moving on to item 7. appeal 21-026. salvatore romano versus public works. 1234 lombard street appealing issuance on march 26, 2021 to 1234 lombard to remove one significant tree on private property without replacement. it is a clear sift has card as it threatens structures and numerous utility lines. 204540. we will hear from the appellant

first. you have seven minutes. >> let me give him a call.

>> everyone is aware of the order. it is not fair to the permit holder. >> speaking as the permit applicant, i would like to have the matter done today. mr. romano did not appear at the prior protest hearing either. >> we will call him. we might hold it over one item. it will be heard presumably.

>> president honda. i talked to the appellant. they stated their statement is standing as the argument and they hope you make the right decision. >> we should go ahead with this hearing. >> appellant is not present. relying on his statement. we will hear from permit holder represented by ms. donovan. you have seven minutes. >> i will be very quick. i submitted the presentation that we provided previously as an exhibit to our brief. that should give you the photograph that you need to have an understanding what is going on here. the board of urban for resindustry made certain findings. i will go through those briefly.

this tree has outgrown the area threatening our property. it is threatening the neighboring property as well. while this qualifies as significant tree, due to the proximity near the sidewalk in the street i think it is important to note this is not notadjacent to the walk and str. it is threatening our structure it is too large for the space in which it is located. it is clearly threatening not only our building but the neighboring building this is occupied by the appellant. the crown of the industry extends at a relatively acute angle over the sidewalk which is the sidewalk of lombard street one block from the crooked street. this receives a lot of pedestrian traffic going to and from the crooked street. particularly on the weekends.

we applied for removal of the tree in november. we waited this long to get it out. as noted by the board of urban forestry we are trying to workout a solution with the neighbors. that is not possible now. we are growing concerned about what this might do to our property. with that i conclude my remarks.

>> is there a powerpoint? >> i wanted to review the subject tree is red flowering gum. it is large. this is probably middle-aged. this trunk is half the diameter. when we look at the next image, it is clear that the both property owners enjoyed the benefit of the tree because a tree growing in this space usually makes people anxious about the potential damage to damag to

both properties. the subject tree is damaging the applicant's property. the downhill property is damaged in two locations. both about four feet above grade and down near where the troping originated from the soil. very -- where the tr un k originates. the appellant i did review the brief closely. they talked about wanting to see forensic documentation. the urban forester the person most knowledgeable the growth and management of trees in san francisco. other than the urban forester for rec and park. matters of trees in urban settings. this has out grope the space, causing damage to both properties. it is also on top of the gas

line and the power to both homes. >> we can't direct the property owner to plant the replacement tree. there is no room. there is an existing tree adjacent to the property which will remain. the closest possible planting opportunity which would be voluntary by the owner or appellant or the downhill neighbor would be a street tree at this location. if either owner is willing to water the tree and plant be the tree, the city would maintain it in the future after three years of watering. really the subject before us is removal of one significant tree. public works believes it is

reasonable to remove. property damage no penalty here. this is not development related. it is a tree that should never have been placed there. our recommendation is to uphold the public works order that approves one significant tree without replacement. thank you. >> thank you, chris. these trees have quite fast growth, right? i believe i had two of these and they were constantly getting pruned? >> they grow quickly not as fast as blue gum. the trunk just keeps expanding. >> they can get up to 50 or 60 feet? >> in height, yes. the trunk will keep adding

growth. >> thank you, mr. buck. >> any public comment on this item, please raise your hand? >> i don't see public comment. we are moving on to rebuttal. ms. donovan anything further? you have three minutes. >> nothing further. >> mr. buck, anything further. >> nothing further. >> okay. commissioners this is submitted. >> any commissioner like to start first? >> i would like to accept the advice of buff in this case. after seeing the tree and what it would grow to, that is the best reason why, unfortunately, this tree should meet its denies. wrong tree or the beautiful tree

in the wrong place. normally, our history has been that mr. buck defends the life of most every mature tree in san francisco. i believe his advice that the tree is damaging both homes that it is next to as well as the safety concern of being near a gas line, which clearly will be further threatened in succeeding years. it forces me to remove this tree. i would like to find a way to to replace this tree in another location. >> i hate to give up a tree without having it --

>> the neighbor that is not here this evening. >> i think that we should, again, i am falling short on making the motion. mr. president, why don't you make the motion. >> i may being the motion to deny appeal on the basis that the tree health and safety for pedestrians and the recommendation that the tree should be removed. >> motion from president honda to deny appeal apuphold order on the basis of the recommendation regarding the safety of the tree, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> on that motion, commissioner chang. >> aye. >> ice vice president swig.

>> aye. >> that motion carries 3-0. the appeal is denied. commissioner lazarus will be joining us. one moment before the next item. >> which we are at right now. joining now. >> welcome, commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. >> you have been missed. >> next item. >> item 8 appealed 21-023.

audreyia arteseros. subject property 1748 keith street appealing the issuance of an alteration permit. ordinance 162-16 to remodel entry and add new door. permit 2019/10/29/58 4. we will hear from appellant first. you have seven minutes. welcome. >> please go ahead. >> good evening, president honda and members of the board. i am mark johnson i will help walk through the appeal here. first of all, adria is not opposed to the additional dwelling unit. it doesn't fit in every

location. she owns 1740 keith which is adjacent to 1748, the applicant property. it is the corner lot. the homes along keith street are on this side of the street are all small homes. the older pre-war homes. her house is one bedroom. you don't see m-1 bedroom homes in the city. no backyards and no driveway. they have full garages. she can park two cars in the garage. almost everybody on the street can park one car in the garage. the reason he is appeals is parking. it creates loss of all on site parking. everything on site now is in the street. adding or taking away the existing unit parking on site and two units to the street.

no room. the parking is way over capacity. on keith street it is so narrow you can't double park. on shafter there are cars we watched this over the last month or so. five to 10 per block on both sides. double parked. this isn't for five minutes. they are overnight. if you park at the curb you are blocked in. in addition to that people are on the sidewalk crossing the sidewalk and parallel to the sidewalk. nobody says anything about it. on shafter we have the fire station. it is a safety hazard. with the cars on the sidewalk a lot of people that have wheelchairs. walk concerns they have a hard time coming down the street to get past the cars.

the parking is the big issue for adria. we looked at the responden's brief. he argues the house he purchased was in disrepair. these houses are 80 years old. mr. jackson lived there 50 or 60 years. he didn't have money to keep it up. as he passed away his family sold it as a contractor special. the applicant is a contractor. he is a professional contractor, professional landlord and argues the garage wasn't usable. there is no parking. he always parked in the garage. adria park in the garage. he argues old plumbing and dry rot. the housing are 80 years old what did you expect? he remodeled the living unit to represent it out. you had to do that. he had to upgrade plumbing and

electrical. he didn't do anything more than had he to do. best use a.d.u. and make it section 8 low income. that works fine. the government pays the rent. the best use of the property these are single family dwellings, junior lots on crowded street, not r2 lots. everybody argues the housing crisis. we watched rents fall in the city. demand dropped. down 20, 30%. issuing two months free to sign a lease. combine with increase supply not just supply a lot of projects in the pipeline for years. looking at it these projects are the bigger projects are properly designed with traffic studies. they went through e.i.r.

we have pier 70, potrero power plant, naval shipyard. the visitation valley and the brisbon project. >> they are doing infrastructure work next month. 30% bmr. that is huge amount of below market rate housing on the market. i don't think there is really the need to do what they are trying to do with this piece of property. adria is wrapping this up. low income. diverse. people speak english as second language don't have capacity appeal this. i am helping adria do this. they don't want more parking on

the block. more cars on the street. it degrades the neighborhood. is it worth creating one unit and then degrading the neighborhood? when you put parking on the street it is not going away. it is one way permanent. that is not fair. this community you look at this underserved community in the city. always left behind. we really respectfully ask that you revoke the approval of this a.d.u. on this particular property. if you have any questions i am here. thank you so much. it is really the parking impact. >> thank you. >> thank you for your statement. as long-term san franciscan, i love my parking. plans is going to speak to this as well. more statement than question. that is no longer requirement.

on the basis of the argument on the fact that it is putting cars on the street, that is not going to work so much. rebuttal you might want to alter your statement. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. >> i am the permit holder. what i wanted to see is the appeal did not fight any legal authority that would allow this permit. my client has complied with all of the city requirements. it is a well stated state and city policy.

>> we request this appeal be denied. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> planning department. subject property at 1748 keith street is located within rh-1 zoning as noted. corner lot. it is a very small lot at about 1141 square feet. substandard lot that doesn't meet current code requirements. the house was built in 1933 per assessor records before the

minimum lot sizes were effective. half block from rhq zoning at keith and then further down. revere and keith two corner lots have fairly large apartment building complexes on it. in terms of the neighborhood character adding a second dwelling unit which this proposes a.d.u. within the existing envelope. also two blocks from third street and light rail. no expansion to building on it. no parking requirement as correctly noted by president honda. the parking requirement was removed by the board of supervisors. the a.d.u. approved under section 207 c 4. the local a.d.u. program.

they did receive density and open space waiver given the size of the lot. they weren't able to provide the usable open space. they went through the requirement of c-4. to the extent there is rent control that applied to the property that applied to the a.d.u. added here. the current as i understand it the main issue related to parking. there is no parking requirement, nothing that obligates them to keep off straight parking under the planning code any more. what the project will do and it is a small garage now we could fit one or two cars if you are creative how you park. the part of the project is to restore curb cut to be a curb at which someone can park. you are looking at gaining an on-street parking space where that curb exists currently. i appreciate the comments about

the housing crisis. we all wish it was over. it is not. what we have seen over the events of the last year is a temporary event that led to slightly lower housing prices for a brief period of time. not unlike what we saw after the great recession in 2008. we look at the last decade how housing prices increased. we are not at the end of the housing crisis. we are in the middle of it. additional units are required. this meets all code requirements. it is code compliant in terms of our planning process. we request the board deny appeal and hold the permit as proposed. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. we will hear from the department of building inspection.

>> joe duffy, d.b.i. subject permit remodel entry was reviewed by the planning department, building department, mechanical plan check. went through d.p.w. for approval. the quality control and permit bureau. i did not hear building code issues brought up during the discussion. i am available for any questions but as far as i can tell everything so far is code compliant project with the building code. thank you. >> okay any public comment on this item. please raise your hands. i don't see any hands. we will move to rebuttal. mr. johnson. you have three minutes. >> thank you.

again, i think the issue is parking. it is the safety related to parking. with all cars on the sidewalk it is a safety issue. i don't know how well you know the neighborhood. people don't stop at the stop signs. it is bad. it is a safety issue. i can't believe the fire department hasn't complained about it. coming out of the station is quite dangerous. i think in addition this degrades the neighborhood. this has been here 20 years. this is almost all owner occupied. they are trying to improve the neighborhood. this degrades the neighborhood and no way to fix that in the future. >> i want to point out that the permit was just approved but they have done a significant amount of work on the edu long before the permit was approved. i did make a complaint for the planning commission they were doing work before the permit was

approved. nothing was done about that. i wanted to make a note about that. >> building inspectors didn't stop it. >> they have put the second front do there. they divided the single family home to two units and started working on the floor in the garage before the permit was approved. >> thank you for reminding me. that was my question. the apple laboratory states they call -- appellant says they called inspector and there was no response. how did you make that call? >> i filed a complaint online and called the phone number to follow up and left messages. i never received a call back. >> do you remember the inspector? >> inspector sanders. >> thank you for reminding me. that was my question. i forgot to ask that. thank you. >> we will hear from the permit

holder, his attorney. >> while i sympathize are parking. the place to address is not before the board of appeals. it is not fair to hold my client responsible for the existing traffic conditions. that is for another jurisdiction to be discussed and resolved elsewhere. that is all. >> thank you. >> i have a question. sorry. counselor, how do you respond to work done prior to getting permit? your permit was issued march 10th. did you do the work before marc? >> i am not able to respond. i have not been on the property.

>> your client is online. can he respond to that? >> one moment. i can see if he can respond. are you able to respond? >> i am here. >> your neighbor has said that work was done to the property prior to your permit being issued on march 10, 2021. is that correct? >> we have some sewer problem on the garage level with the sewer line was busted. we had the garage for dry rot lumber. [please stand by]

he's a very astute building inspector was to customers i don't think he would have been ignoring any calls or emails he was getting from the appellant's . at that time it would have been theacting chief inspector . the inspectors not getting back

to them, it's usually relegated to myself or one ofthe senior inspectors . i did not see that and i would like to think they went ahead and framed in the 80after we had to stop work order . there is an active notice violation and we didn't document >> thank you, chair one. >> thank you deputy chief, that's a lot to say and i'm going to call you inspectors still. thank you for letting us know and that's very reassuring that inspectors are very diligent outthere . especially having property in thatdistrict, it's quite challenging , quite a challenging space sometimes so thank you for notifying us and we will work it out with them. >> can i haveone more comment

when the permit holder is there ? thinks he needs to have a conversation with inspector saunders aboutpenalty fees . i didn't see where the penalty fees were on this permit and we can catch up with that but if the permit did go aheadtonight i'd like him to with the district . >> is that something you would like us to condition or you want us to make a note? >> i just wanted tostate it here. i follow up with the inspector as well .but i do know, i remember now that i look that up i remember getting compacted for the last year. then we obviously this is february 2020, we had covid in march andwe all know what happened then . you don't need todo anything, we can take care of it . >> thank you deputychief .

>> thank you. we just lost commissioner chang so bear with us. let's pause fora moment . she just lostconnection and is trying to get back on . ... >> my legs are fallingasleep myself . >> look, a zoommeeting without shirts . >> why don't youresend it to her ? i think she's having some technical problems. thank you foryour patience everyone . >> i rememberhaving mine last

month . >> okay, i think she's ... >> i'm backon everyone. >> welcome back commissioner chang . director duffy dida stop and that's when you lost connection and the matter has been submitted . >> any of my commissioners like to start ? >> i think the permit was properly issued. >> i agree. >> would anyonelike to make a motion to that ? >> let's putcommissioner rob lazarus to work . >> she made almost allthe motions on last year . >> commissioner vice president swig, be my guest. >> i moved to deny the of your was properly issued.

>> we have a motion from vice president swig andcall the permit on the basis it was properly issued commissioner lazarus . >> aye. [roll call vote] that motion carries. 4 to 0, the appeal is denied. we are moving on to item number nine, your number 21024 . >> do you mind if wetake a six minute break ? i believe this next case will be a little ... we are now on o nine, your number 21024, larry and barbara delaney , larry monk and jim lou . planning department approval, subject to property of 4226 street on march 8, 2021 two earth llc , fourth floor

expansion of for existing units onthe third floor . add new roof decks, change construction type, deeper the number 2018 6157 for approved adu. this ispermit 012-91-1353 . we will hear from the appellant's first. mister delaney, will you be speaking first ? >> mrs. delaney, i'll be speaking first. >> did you want to let us know you divide up yourtime with your callpellets . >> . [inaudible] >> you will letus know when you're ready for him . >> donald told me week he would stop theclock and we would handed over . >> it's my first time doing this so i hope i don't screw things up. >> i was going to ask president

honda permission to do that. >> just relax,speak from the heart . i have a hard time talking to myself, love trust me. >> now i need tofigure out how i show you guys my screen . i guess just share screen. >> just share screen like we didin the zoom test . >> and share. thank you alex now i need to change this view . to present frombeginning . okay. i think i'm ready. >> work time is starting. >> the eveningeveryone, thank you all for being here . circled in red is the subject property. you can see the over mapping of the building compared to the

surrounding property . here's the propertyin relation to the properties of the appellate . the history of theof the . when we receive plans in a notice about discretionary review on theproperty march 2, 2020 . we contacted the planner in charge and we were told a permit had been issued that should have gone to the planning department first and which was now withdrawn and the planning department wasbringing the whole project for the er . why we have been and are opposed to thisproject . the density. the original building was going to go through 12 to 17 units and the number of bedroomsfrom 20 to 44 . the configuration of the units was more like a dormitory like family project. units were not ada compliant and not suitable for families or seniors. the developer said he was

creating affordable housing but when questioned about this he said the units were control. rent control isnot affordable housing . we especially dislike of four-story and roof deck. the fourth storydoes not add more housing , only more profits. the property is already overdeveloped. it takes up far more land and thesurroundingproperties . it doesn't need to be any bigger . we donot like the roof deck . the roof deck should be light and noise pollution for nearby property, they create issues of privacy andespecially they create hazards from blowing debris . we are in the outer sunset district and the wind is almos nonstop . 48 to 50miles per hour today alone . why the developer agreed to trade. the planning department was very concerned for new york's reorganized 80 use the layout a second and third story, a lack

of common space in the unitat fourth story . the whole projectwas scheduled for discretionary review . the agreement. the planning department advise us to contact thedeveloper and try to compromise . we told the developer of the same thing .april 1 contacted the developer saying we would not oppose two other plans if you didnot build a four-story and roof deck . on april 2 he agreed to this by text message. he repeated this multiple time , the last on april 14. april 3, the day after we agreed with the developer we contacted the planner telling him we had as he suggested may have compromiseagreement with the developer . he would not buildthe fourth floor and we would not oppose over four . here are the text messages from that agreement. the agreement was made message.

so developer tome . i don't know ... >> i don'tsee the text messages . >> itemis caused . >> i see three boxes. >> i believe thetext messages are in . >> we seethem now . >> resuming time. >> the developer, i don'tknow if david will do what you suggest . i have alreadyasked him and he said no . you'll have to helpchange his mind which make brings me to point to point to . it will take you and all your opponents supporting the internal project to ensure pop-up doesn't happen . if we can avoidgoing to planningcommission i will gladly skip the pop-up . let's make it happen . me to the developer. i talked to neighbors have bee organizing other neighbors . ifthere is no fourth story no roof deck they will not oppose

anything else . the developer to me. i don't think we needa massive effort . i think if you justemail david that would be sufficient . developer to me. still on april 3. >> i'm sorry, we don't see the text messages. >> it must be taking a while for them to, >> they are there now. >> was a pausewhile we are looking at those ? >>. [inaudible] >> developer to me, since we are notexpanding the building . >> we would not be building sheet a 110. please free to call or email. me. i already wrote to david to say you would not builda roof deck and i would not oppose the rest of the plan . i also sentof the other neighbors would be fine with

this aswell . david is the planner . the developer to me . , we are abandoning the fourth floor. we are simply abandoning that permit applicationand reverting to what was already issued . e.g. brian and brian, we all very glad for thisnews . as i said i'm already told the we would not object to the rest of theplanet there was no fourth floor. ryanjimmy . race barbara, thank you . then after all of that and we got no more about the building on april 30th he told us he was going ahead with his fourth floor plan. on the 11th of the planner told us brian was going ahead. may 18, the planner told us in a phone call that the art would be about the fourthfloor and laura only . we did not know the permit to the second floor had been

approved. it was approved on december 9, 2019 and is presumably the one of planningdepartment had revoked with serious concerns with the adu . in summary, has advised me made compromise agreement with the developer that if they did not build the fourth story and roof deck we would not oppose the plans for the rest of the building . we kept our part of the agreement to notoppose the secondand third floors and the developers need to keep their . i'm done . >> we will pause the time. >> time at 1:04. >> mister falou. >> i'm sorry, yes. >> you will have a minute and four seconds. >> i support everything barbara says. i was with her during the process and brief is accurate

and i am the neighbor he pointed out to the westside of the construction project . brief submitted by the developers are riddled with inaccuracies anddescribing bible is inaccurate . in terms of claiming is providing affordable housing is inaccurate so as you can see the developer has created an antagonistic relationship with the neighbors and we think this board should take it up with this. we think itwas an error . >> 30 seconds. >> i think somebody should ask the developer wider under so much pressure over build on this property is i have to kee the terms of their loan . i feel like we are having to pay in theneighborhood for the fact that he's over borrowed on this project . andthat's it, thank you . >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder.

>> can i ask a question? >> we have a question from vice president swig. >> i would like to have the city attorney give us his opinion on how we should deal with the issue related to commitments made whether they be whatever the media be. be it email, be it written and how should we deal with this whole very important issue or certainly emotional issue about an alleged agreement between both parties as we accept commentary on this item. >> good evening commissioners, brad referendum, city attorney's office.

the permit is before you de novo meaning the board has plenary authority to make modifications to the project. irrespective of the agreement that was made and that the parties disputing it are made i guess. it is a factor you can consider but we arenot bound by the private agreement .>> thank you and ithink it's important for both parties to hearthat as well as the commissioners. i appreciate the time . >> we will now hear from the permit holder . i believe believe we have mister gates here. >> i'm going totry to share my screen, thank you .... can

you all see that? >> it didn't gointo full screen but we can see the picture . alice, do you have any suggestions? >> we have it at 44 percent. you might want to go to 100. >> sorry aboutthat . >> can't see that we're showing anemail. you're at 40 percent if you

look at the top . next to the hand . >> i have yourpresentation to if you need me to show it . >> sorryabout this . >> is okay. while you go to 75percent and see what happens . >> can you see that? >> that's good. >> are you ready? >>okay. my name is brian, i'm the project developer .look at this vacant building. years ago we put togetherlocal investors to buy it . what if i told you right now that the presentersaid you only

have 3 and a half minutes . that's what happens to me when i spoke to the planning commission david was upfront and i think it was a sincere mistake i had two years ofwork and five minutes to talk about it . the point is planningcommission , the planning department makes mistakes every mistake has borne the brunton us. this is the building as it stands now . this is the building when we posted a notice andi'm happy to get into the details of the supposed agreement . if you read my brief i think we have a clear case, they had another bite at the apple so they were not prejudiced by the agreement agreementwas predicated on something that was mistaken . we bought thisbuilding totally vacant . thereason for the project is i believe it's theright thing to do .the headlines areabout how unaffordable housing is in thecity . we are part of the solution . the neighbors are part of the

problem . we have people stretching across their rooms trying to create bedrooms all we wanted to do was give people a space with a actualwork . if you look at some of the statistics here, this is the greenest kind of building you can do. we used thelowest amount of water . we drive miles that peopledrive in rural areas . have the highest rents. we have peopleliving in parking lots, teachers leaving the city . why can't we provide housing? we have the highest rents in the city with thelowest production .why doesn't the west side it's only? we can't house everyone and high-rises in solar. i don't want to get into the details on my time but i feel like the denied variance wasin error . weshould have been granted the variance . thevariance with an existing situation . >> we can't hearyou as well .

>> there you go, your good. >> i think heunhooked the microphone . >> about that but in any case, this person here i don't think would complain about life and air and, saul the light and ai problem . the minute you want to go and access light and air everyone wants to shut down. we brought it down to the studs, this building requires extensive remodels. it's natural to want to amortize over more bedrooms. this great areais what we propose originally . what's rdat said it is you step back that far, that makes it an unbillable remainder. you have to carry structure through and itkills the whole project but this was the

building this is what we could have done . this is what we ended up doing and i feel like thenight in montypython . just talking about leslie . but essentially we did shadow studies, we showed there is no shadows with the original building bigger footprint so i thought logic has no impact to theshadows . when you look at the project from the street i guarantee no one is to complain that this project is theneighborhood character . it's a completely urban environments . we did the studies. here's our neighbors building, we offered to his building and he wouldn't even letus put scaffold up to fix our own building . you see that the building now to new siding on it and take great. this is a viewpoint for thenext slide . here's what this neighbor sees now and years with thebuilding so go back . years with the building. this view is from theonly . the yellow area is what they

will see it's more like they can us and we're still not blocking their view less the views are not protected. here's what theysee with the building . similarly this other view, it's really notout of character . this is the streetview . why rdat us in half i don't know whatthat's what we have to live with . we have plenty of four-story buildings in outer sunset . this isnot out of character . it's the buildings around us complaining about your unique blocks were not tallerthan us they knew their view was being blocked ? there already existing apollo space . to deny our project its own life and air beyond the pale. these buildings are all our hikes for above. there's five on our block alon . you are not objecting to us being out of neighborhood character , objecting to uswhat they .

for them to complainresidential housing is not what is false . talk to my parents been there many years 8800 bucks for a three bedroom, which would you rather have ? anormal room or schedule ? i want to show you this is what i'mdoing in our neighborhood , i ride my bike all these projects. we have old fire escape was rusting. we repairedeverything with new copper skylights . everything firstclass . new steels bruised. i do this right area on a structural engineer. we can increaseany rent . new fire escape. this is what we wanted to do withthis building , provide resilient housing. we had people who sign our petition, 180 people are in support . code of ethics since this is dispose ofresilient housing were supposed to make about . jim knew i was local and he said iwasn't .

he said it on zoom.he said that he double the number of bedrooms. the real concern for the neighbors as the parking because they have to much stuff in their own garages so there' a number of falsehoods they claimed about me . a call-in building violations. this issue with the fourth story, using email and says if we're willing to withdraw the fourth we would allow the interior alterations . a lot of pressure on the developer trying to build affordable housing, r portable with stan so at that point i say let's bail on this thing i think it's the wrong thing to do and he said we made a mistake so okay, let's share this beautiful sunset with other people. i don't thinkother people having what we have issuch a problem . you . >> we will now hear from the planningdepartment . >> scott fincher of the

planning department. the subject property at 4326 urban street, it's 6000 square-foot lot and 12 unit building, originally 12 unit building builtin 1960 . existing is a legal noncomplying structure that extends into the rearguard and it's about the general density of the rhd district which allowed about four dwelling units on a lot of thissize. the units there are rent-controlled given the age of the building . the history of the project is that there was a building permit issued in 2019 to add five adu's. those were alsorent-controlled units . and that increase the density than from 12 building units to 17 dwelling units. there was almost were pretty close to a separate permit that

reconfigured the units as i understand your configured even the adu that increase the number of bedrooms, that permit wasnot routed to the department for review which it should have been at that time . the permit is beforeyou now is really solely a vertical addition . initially an extension of 4 dwelling units . after the planning commission review and commissions through a adr, that expands the dwelling units number 304, 305 306 to relocate the kitchens from the third floor to the fourth floor and allows for a totalof three new bedrooms . that would be one-bedroom in eachof the three units as being expanded .the notification

for this project is subject to section 311 neighborhood notification which began in march of 2020 and unfortunately we then went to the shelter in place and got the neighborhood notification so there wasn't polling of the neighborhood notice beginning on 317 which was the adoption of the shelter in place. it took us a while to get our process switched over to an online system where someone could file a discretionary view online and then we were able to begin to restart the neighborhood notification later on in april understanding that while the neighborhood notice was pulled but when the originalexpiration date of the 311 notice was , at the beginning of april the project sponsor reached out to taft and said they would not be doing thefourth floor addition .

about a month past and then they decided to pursue the vertical addition so we did an additional supplementalsection 311 notification . i should add this was all under the guise of having a hearing at the planning commission, he didn't file a discretionary view because we were doing a discretionary view which the court of appeals doesn't see that often but when the department is not supportive of a design we will do asap initiated discretionary view to bring the item to the planning commission and the public is notrequired at that point to submit adr although they can if they would like to . but we have the planning commission hearing on this item . the planning commission did vote to approve the project with the conditions department recommended for additional setbacks on the fourth floor addition that would use the expansion for four units to three units , also the administrator denied exposure

variants which were required because of the encroachment of that vertical addition on life support which for a few of the units was the only source of life and it's already substandard so that additional massing vertically above that courtyard was the reason for the need for the exposure variants for the units ofthe building . the variance was denied and the project was modified in such a way that thevariance was no longer needed and it's completely open compliance . this is as deputy rusty noted, the board of appeals has a de novo hearing authority on this. the standard of review, you can consider the whole project as effectively like a discretionary view hearing. you have the whole project before you , this vertical addition. the planning department found project comprised of the planning code by the residential zone guidelines,

that is before you now. it's really just the vertical addition, the expansion of the three dwelling units and that is up to the board to make a decision on and i respect the request the board denied appeal andgrant the permit asapproved . i'm available for any questions . >> i have one mister sanchez. there was a lot ofreading on this . a lot of everything so going through it was a lot of information from the agencies and a bunch of other stuff but after i read the briefing, it appeared to me it was completely code compliant and not requiringany variances . >> that's correct. >> second question is a lot of contention seemsto be on the

outdoor space or the death case . is that backspace part of the wire space? >> it improves the open space access but given the units are already substandard is not required to beadded . >> ,deckwe talking about here ? >> i don't havethat calculation . >> maybe the project sponsor can outline that. >> is on the plans, it looks like for unit 306 is maybe about 525 square feet or sorry, they actually did a new common roof deck that is about 400 square feet and private usable open space for unit 306 of hundred 25 square feet and then for each of the units. it's 125 square feet for the expanded units, real four, 305 and 306.

>> to almost 525 for the common area. >> 400 for the rest of the building so it's improving overall access to required usable open space .it's not required to be added, it's an existing substandard condition but it makes it more code compliant. >> thank you for that verification. >> thank you. we will now hearfrom the department of building inspections . >> joe duffy, dvi just reviewing the description of the work . this permit has been read through the various city departments as i stated on the earlier permit , it's been reviewed for mechanical review. looks like it's code compliant as it stands right now. i'm available for any question .

i did have some extended permits last year on the building, working with our colleagues in planning and the project sponsor and some of the neighbors. that all got cleared up as far as i know. again, i'mavailable for any questions . q. >> thank you. we are now moving on to public comments forthis item . if you'd like to provide public comment raise your hand if you called in 30 press star 9. please goahead . the caller whose phone number endsin 5936 , go aheadand speak . try pressing star, six.

okay. ásix. we're going to come back to you caller. going to take public comment fromsylvia ahearn . >>caller: can you hear me? >> welcome. >>caller: thank you for this opportunity. i'm reading this statement on behalfof a neighbor of the project, jdr lives around the corner has sent a letter to the board of appeals . her statement is those to the permit for a fourth story, and roof deck at 26 burning street. the developer made an agreement with the neighborhood not to build afourth story if the neighbors would not oppose the plans for the rest of the

building . the developers have been duplicitous about the nature of this project from the beginning i'm not on video i see. from the beginning . when they met with some of us in august 2019 at job a beach cafi told us they were local boys trying to createaffordable housing . the 2 llc's only local interest is in a short-term rental building and the property isnot affordable housing . it's a foreign of bedrooms and bathrooms with little common spacein the units . for a family life, it's much more suitable for transients and roommates, in fact was mister these words. his unit will be fully market right shared among several income it becomes affordable. he said each bedroom would be about $1800. these are not what we normally think of as a portable unit despite misterpete's claim that

rent control is a kind of affordability . ordinarily developers have not been allowed to build something of this massive density from the ground up without mandatory neighborhood notifications and ada requirements but they were able to bypass all of this review i buy an existing overly massivebuilding working within the existing footprint . the adu process does not require neighborhood notification . the developers had to get this by taking out the 12 parking spaces in the original building and putting in 5 adu's but these are not granny flats. one has four bedrooms and three bathrooms and altogether i hav 13 bedrooms and 11 bathrooms . this could not have been given an exemption. the building that goes from 12 units to 20 bedrooms, i'm sorry. do i have more time?

to a building with 44 bedrooms, 35 baths and no parking hoses in the language of the planning code apossibility of a significant effect due to unusual circumstances this project should have had a lot more review than it did . the developer used the system to keep it mostly from serious scrutiny and that's what we want, at least they should be held totheir agreement not to build a fourth story . and at best it should be subjected to review class i noticed that 2 peoplepublic comment in the chat . the chat is to be used for technical assistance only so please don't provide public comment in the chat. please thank you . are going to try once again a phone number ending in 5936. >>caller: can you hear me now? >> please go ahead.

>>caller: i'm the president speak, speak is insupport of the appellant. speak submitted written comments which i will repeat . the project site has nonconforming features including lot size and open space. there was a lot murder in 2018 . the sponsor sought serial permitting for his adu for the second and third story identification and finally for the story vertical position. the project camebefore the commission as a staff initiated the arm which is rare .the project site is zoned by irv llc, listed as a foreign entit . besides irv llc, the project sponsor is affiliated with

steel rockinvestments , and she treat llc. all these llcs are noted by the secretary of state for the business type listed as real estate investment. most of these llcs are address is on the great highway building owned by over the llc. this confirms the irving street is a speculative project. there was a broadcast media segment on thisproject . the segment included statements by the project concertlabeling the community as quote , privileged rich neighbors. the project sponsor also alleged the project has 100 percent rent control units. however, planning commissioner imperial refuted this although the site had been rent-controlled because it has been vacant for more than three years it is no longer falling

under rent control and it's now market rates. during that same broadcast, there were statements made by the legislation in public affairs director of the association of bay area governments and the metropolitan transportation commission. the community contact both the executive director and also the director district 4 supervisor saying this is ... >> 30 seconds. >> supervisor hunker has contacted the director to express the districts in dismay for theirparticipation and once again i would urge the board to uphold the appeal ,thank you . >> wewill now hear from diana . diana, please goahead . >>caller: can you hear me after mark.

>> yes i can. >>caller: i just have a quick statement and one question. i'm not sure which unit we would go to. i want to clarify as a landlord the difference between affordable housing and rent control which i'm sure you know because thedeveloper was incorrect in what he said . so i believe theproperty would still be under rent control but he would be able to rent the property at market rate is not necessarily affordable . my question is i was wondering if there had been an environmental study on the sewer system. i live around the corner and i'm concerned with the increaseddensity of whateffect that's going to happen our sewer system . has there been any study for that ? >> we're not going tobe answering questions, this is your time to provide comment .

>> caller: sorry about that. then that's my comment and it seems the whole project has been about addingtoo much density to that area . so i support barbara and larry's complaint about the project. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. mister gordon. ... please go ahead. mister gruden, you can go ahea .

mister gruden, we can come back to you if you're having problems. are you there? okay. why do we try ... >> caller: can you see me now? can you hear me after mark. >> please go ahead. >> caller: my wife and i are both requesting that the board of appeals denied the permit to build a fourth floor at 4326 irving street. the developer made an agreement with the adjacent neighbors larry mack, larry and barbara delaney and patricia lee last april, not to build thefourth floor . these developers have clearly asked barbara delaney showed in

her presentation gone back on their agreement. if there is not trust in a neighborhood, what can neighbors expect from such a developer. moreover, the adjacent neighbors followed the san francisco planning commission to geffen they try to reach a compromise in the developer and the adjacent neighbors did that but the developer did not comply with their agreement. this is outrageous. the developers and adjacent neighbors agreement was not an informal agreement. it was a clear agreement was negotiated and was opposed to be awin-win for both sides . if we can avoid going to the planning commission i would gladly skip on the subject facing irving street.

the property is already developed far beyond what is recommended by the planning board . the proposed project would not be in keeping with theexisting housing and neighborhood character . the project would fail to preserve character by adding additional hikes to a structure that is already larger than the area. the proposed project will have no effect on the cityaffordable housing . even though the developer was aware of thesethings , he totally went back on his agreement to the adjacent neighbors. even though i housing will be a fully market rate, the developersalways promoted it as affordable housing . they even convinced supervisor gordon mar of this

representation andhe withdrew his support. please deny this appeal . >>. [please stand by]

. >> the fact that we can have rehabilitated rent controlled units is a plus for the housing system. additionally, the west side has not pulled its weight in terms of building new housing. san francisco planning department once commissioned a study that said if you do not build new market rate housing units, then above -- above moderate income households will move into existing units, so it's important to build units that are just rent controlled and not deed restricted units.

so i support this project. please deny the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. the next speaker is michelle delaney. miss delaney, i just want to confirm, are you related or do you live with the appellant? hello? michelle delaney? okay. i don't see michelle delaney with us any longer. is there any other public comment, please raise your hand. okay. we'll hear from mr. will cartis. your video will start shortly. >> sorry. i just got organized and just got home. so i have the listing of the entire argument. so i am completely opposed to

the fourth floor at the address just for the same reasons that larry and barbara had brought up. to me, the additional bedroom, and it is that, it's an additional bedroom or bedrooms on top of the roof of the fourth floor just doesn't really add anymore apartments. like, we're talking about, you know, giving more housing, but it's not really more housing, it's just one more bedroom, so i don't quite get that to. me, the whole process seems pretty shady. there's been a few times that i've gone there where the permit was not there or it was moved. one time, the permit was 8 feet up and upside down. and currently, right now, it's just the state of the building. there is graffiti all over it. like, it's trashed, and it's

been trashed since they started. it's construction trash and neighborhood trash. again, i just think it sets a bad development for any other development like that. i've said this in my letter, and i've said this in all of my arguments. as much as i would hate to see any shadow on my yard, i just think having it just for extra bedrooms and extra money ruins essentially what we have around here, and i'm not rich by any means. i'm working two jobs currently and barely able to afford what i have. that's my argument. i'm opposed to the fourth floor, and i agree with what everyone else has said. >> clerk: okay. thank you for your comments. i see that michelle delaney has joined us again. i just want to confirm, miss

delaney, do you live with the appellants? miss delaney, michelle delaney? i see that you're here, and would you like to speak? okay. we're going to go to sophia lynn. miss lynn, please go ahead. >> hi, everyone. good evening. i oppose the fourth floor project? actually, the labor of this project, the think [inaudible] get a notice. we have talked to our neighbors. we have so much worry about the density of this project, and in our neighborhood, we live in harmony, we're very friendly. everyone shares our concerns, so because the fourth floor adding to it, the density will increase a lot of noises, and also increase our worry about the crime that happen more? busy with the street and here

in the [inaudible] neighborhood, we all share our public resources in terms of the parking and all the nice air, and we help each other. i don't know why the developer suddenly increased so much unit, and we know the prices for the housing in san francisco, but this project won't be part of the b.m.r. project. it definitely will go to the market rate rent, and i know that the landlord will get much, much more income from the rental, but it will give us a lot of worry to our neighborhood and healthy community, too. so i hope everyone on the board and in the hearing can consider our opinions to oppose this

project, so thank you so much. >> clerk: okay. thank you so much. so i see that michelle delaney is here, and i sent her a message. are you having technical problems? okay. i haven't received an answer. we have an anonymous zoom user. would you like to go ahead? >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. go ahead. >> okay. this is michelle delaney. so i'm just calling, it does concern me what the definition of low-income housing is here -- >> clerk: okay. miss delaney, i just want to confirm, you don't live with the appellant. >> no, i don't. i live in the mission, so i kind of understand what low-income housing looks like, and with this problem, they're going to be able to start at market rate.

2,000, 2500 is not low-income housing. is he planning on giving this out for $500? is he trying to do this out of the goodness of his heart? it seems like they're not there, helping poor families, you know? so if they're going to be doing something to make money for themselves, fine, but don't, like, ruin everybody else's property because you want to make some money. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment, raise your hand. okay. mitzi air, please go ahead. >> hi. i just want to say that my unit will be visibility from the

second and third floor, and i oppose this for density reasons, privacy reasons, and environmental impact. i echo what another caller said, it's a graffiti pit and it's trashed, and so i oppose. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there anyone else here for public comment, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any other hands raised for public comment, so we are going to move onto the rebuttal portion, so we will hear from miss delaney. you have three minutes. which one of the appellants wants to speak for rebuttal? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> i don't know where my

coappellants are because i can't see them on the zoom and i don't know if they want to talk? but it was kind of shocking to hear bryan talk about this. you notice he never mentioned the agreement, and that text message he showed from david, the planner, on april 3, david said, well, if you won't build the fourth story, we will, you know, not object to your second and third story. he had the same agreement -- he made the same agreement with brian. who knows who he said because we wouldn't be opposed to the second and third stories. he wouldn't have to go through the d.r., he wouldn't have to pay fees, he would get his money back. so that was on april 3, and on april 10, brian told us he still wasn't building his fourth story. and, you know, suddenly, he got his second and third floor, and

then, he was going to build his fourth floor, and this is my husband, larry. >> what i would like to say is, regardless of everything else, there was a compromise, and there was a compromise made, and people have to honor these agreements, and the compromise was we would not oppose anything going on on, like, the second floor, the third floor, and the first floor and they would not do the fourth floor, and that agreement was clear at day. it was over the course of, like, many text messages and also a conference call. it was very clear. it was encouraged by the city and county of san francisco. they were the ones who asked us to try to work out a compromise, so we did. we contacted the developers and suggested this. they were very, very happy to go along with it because they were very concerned about being blocked on the second and third floor, especially, so they were

very concerned about that. they wanted our support for that, which we gave them, and they subsequently got the approval for the second and third floor. but then, they went ahead behind our backs and submitted the plans for the fourth floor. it was outrageous, and this was during a time of covid. last april, may, it was really bad. it was really hard to talk to people. you know, we all had to wear masks. [inaudible] >> it was just so hard, and we were just so happy to make the agreement. >> operator: 30 seconds. >> we essentially forgot all about it. after we made the agreement, we forgot all about the building envelope, and we were just so, so happy. to be stabbed in the back was just so outrageous, so totally

outrageous. the developers need to go along with what they agreed. >> operator: that's time. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> president honda: so i have a question. the agreement was made on april 2. the permit holder told you he was rescinding that offer on april 30. is there a reason you did not file a d.r. because you still had time to do so at that point? >> yes, because in the beginning, remember, the planning department had issues with the revised layout of the a.d.u.s and the second and third floor as well as the lack of common space. so we were going to join their d.r. because we all had the same issue. it wasn't until may 18, when i

actually talked to david [inaudible] when he said the d.r. is going to be the second and third floor and the fourth story only. there was no way to get a discretionary review together in four days. and all that time, we thought oh, we'll just join the -- too bad, we have to go through this process, but we're teaming up with the planning department because we all -- >> president honda: i think your husband wants to say something. i'm married, too, by the way. >> you know, there wasn't any time -- we were actually away at the time. >> president honda: i read that on the brief. someone was on vacation, out of the country. >> yeah. so we god back on may 15 -- actually, no, jim got back on

may 15, and we got back on may 16. >> only time we talked with david [inaudible] and we had a phone conversation. >> right. so it was confirmed at the time that the d.r. by the planning department was only going to be about the fourth floor. >> president honda: i think i got my question answered. thank you so much. >> okay. >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving into the rebuttal portion for the permit holder. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> in view, there is nothing new. i was a planning commissioner. everything you've heard tonight was already heard in two public hearings. i can get into this purported agreement. i've explained it in my brief, and i can get into the issues

of affordability. i would rather have a half market half b.m.r. project, believe me. 100% affordable is hard to make money. that's why nobody is building units out here. how many new rehabbed rent controlled units have been built on the west side? it's less than a dozen in the last 20 years, and believe me, this is why. the people didn't need to d.r. because the staff d.r.'ed it, so what's the point? they had two separate 311 notifications. maybe they were on vacation, but that's not a valid reason to somehow complain that what happened was somehow not correct. every t was crossed, every i was dotted. you know, i can explain more about the agreement if you have any issues, but frankly, i

don't even see why it is an issue. they had a full 311 notification. they had a d.r. they had a second d.r. notification period after they knew that agreement was off the table. they still didn't d.r. you can tell tonight, they mounted a vigorous defense. i told my supporters quite frankly not to call in. i've sat on these boards myself. there's no legitimate complaint in this appeal. the agreement -- you know, i can get into the details of it, but it was predicated on a mistake. planning was telling me that they would suspend my permits and undo what we had already built. d.b.i. gave us a permit in september, and then in january, planning said they had an issue with it. i was never so shocked in my professional life, and it turns out nothing was wrong.

it's like the appellant told me tonight, we'll get rid of our ability to rebut if you move up the hearing date, so are they now not going to allow me to file a rebuttal? i know it takes courage to add housing. i vigorously dispute that this is not affordable. bedrooms are the metric. it's easy for families who live in single-family homes, but the people who need to close a door at night need rent controlled housing. [inaudible] >> clerk: no, i'm sorry. we need to control the meeting. president honda has a question. >> president honda: yeah, i have a question.

there's no eviction, there's no demolition, there's no displacement, which i commend, but having a little bit of a hard time with the agreement because they basically -- even though they had two shots, two bites at the apple, as you said earlier, they lost the ability to deal with your second and third floor. is that my understanding? >> well, i'll be happy to answer your question. is mr. weissclass here? i cannot get a sufficient answer from planning why they thought they could force me to suspend a permit that was already issued by d.b.i. >> president honda: since you're not able to answer the question, maybe i'll let the representative from planning answer that. okay? thank you. thank you. >> wait, can i just explain one

thing, president honda? >> president honda: yes. >> so the pressure at that time was immense. >> president honda: okay. wait. stop. i've been in your shoes, and the pressure to build 100% affordable housing is immense. you've answered the question. >> clerk: okay. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. first, there was a ceqa determination. there was a 30-day window to appeal that. there was no environmental review. we could have long and never ending conversations about what an affordable unit is, and there is no definition, but objective three of the housing element does speak to preserve

the affordability of the existing housing stock, and it emphasizes especially affordable rent controlled units. we've seen very many lengthy, passionate, and pained fights to preserve rent controlled units because generally, and up until five years ago, you couldn't create new rent controlled units, but with the a.d.u. program, you actually had the ability to have the rent control increase. i don't think that anyone has called this low-income housing. it's not deed restricted housing that's tied to what someone makes, but this is rent controlled value and does not allow the rent to increase

without limits. when someone is in that unit, then, there's the preservation of that rental rate, so i think it is important, and i think we would generally classify rent control as a type of affordable housing. it's not low-income deed restricted affordable housing, but it is something that we want to preserve, and there are many, many provisions of the city code that seek to preserve and enhance rent controlled housing. there are a lot of discussion about the agreement, and the board of appeals may take that into account if the board wants to take that into account. private agreements are not recognizable by the city, and i think it's up to the board to make a determination if this project is compatible, whether it meets residential design guidelines. >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> -- to adding, you know, one

bedroom for each of those three units and whether or not the board finds that appropriate, and i'm happy to speak to president honda's question about kind of the suspension of permits and the issues related to that, so kind of off of my rebuttal and onto that question. the -- so interior remodel, they are often not routed to planning for review, but it's important, when there are refiguration of units, changing in the bedroom count, and especially changes in a.d.u.s, that they be routed back to planning. it's my understanding that another variant was sought to change the number of bedroom units, and that was approved in 2018, but it went routed to planning for -- it wasn't routed to planning for review,

so we weren't able to look at the comments, whether it was something less code complaints, maybe they were not dwelling units, which is a concern that has been raised before, so d.b.i. -- and i appreciate -- and joe duffy is always great to work with, as you know, but he -- upon hearing these concerns suspended permits to allow the department time to review this. when it comes to how interior modifications are made to a dwelling unit, there's no science to it. we have to look at every one on a case-by-case basis to see if is this changing the fundamental design of the housing unit? there was some back and forth with the permit holder about what they were intending to do, and, you know, it is a

policy-level decision, again, kind of being moran art than a science -- more an art than a design. ultimately, the policy decision was these units, the reconfigurations are acceptable, and we would support them, and i think that is what happened during this time, layering on top of that having the neighborhood notification out for the fourth floor addition, having covid happen, the shelter in place, so with all that, i think is what led to some of the confusion as i understand it in my conversation with mr. weissclass, and i spoke with him just a few hours ago, and i've spoken with him since the appeal was file to better understand the issues, and that's our review as i understand it, so -- and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: president honda, then vice president swig.

>> president honda: surprise, i have a question. thank you for explaining that, and it's been pretty much this board's position not to honor private agreements. we've had private agreements come up to us all the time. unfortunately, that is for after the fact. but the question here is was the appellant's rights ever severed? i keep on hearing because of this agreement, they were not able to d.r. the whole project, but as you just explained it, from what i gathered, those projected were pretty much done and dusted and inked prior to their ability to d.r. the upper floor. >> so the second and third floor and the ground floor alteration permits, they were issued in 2019, and then, when we had the concern about it and the suspension that d.b.i. and we talked about, you know, having a new permit that planning would review, that would actually then be -- it

could be d.r.'ed, it could be appealed. ultimately, we decided a new permit was not required, and the suspension was released by d.b.i. on the original permit. there would have been, and there was, the ability to appeal that, but there was also no notification of the scope of work. the planning department didn't get notice of it because we didn't get a chance to review it. there were concerns and frustrations all-around about this. i don't think anyone is happy about how all of this happened, but in terms of the d.r. for this project because this is what's before the board tonight, we -- after, you know, it was kind of -- it was on that it was going to be a fourth floor addition, and then it was off, and then facts have changed, and it was back on. there was a final notice to file for d.r. but even beyond that, there was a d.r. hearing, and they had the ability to attend the hearing. and beyond that, this was a de

novo hearing. >> president honda: no -- thank you for explaining that, mr. sanchez, and that's the reason there was so much data in our files. at this point, i'm kind of feeling that there has been a lot of process on particular project. >> i agree. you deal with us all the time. roof decks, additions, does it keep with the character of the neighborhood i think are the questions tonight. >> president honda: vice president swig, do you have a question? >> commissioner swig: yeah. this might be somewhat redundant. my concern is not getting hung up on an agreement that was valid, invalid. my concern is the concern of commissioner lazarus', and i

don't have e.s.p. to read her mind. she's told us, in her own terms, to stick to what we're deciding, which is the approval or denial of the permit. add to that, i also understand the frustration of the community when they think they had an agreement, and they might or might not. but again, i think you're going to be redundant, but i just want the appellants to hear it. do you believe that there is any stone which has been left unturned in this hearing, which is de novo and would have occurred with or without an agreement? is there any stone unturned that would -- that might make

this project compromise any of the planning -- planning rules, regulations, compliances, etc., etc.? >> on this project, there are a lot of stones, and they're very messy and scattered all over the place, but the board of appeals is the final decider in any permit, and the issue is before you. the process is below, while complicated while going through covid, while a lot of detailed and complex history, the project is code compliant, and i think it's really up to the board of appeals as to whether you find this to be compliant with residential design guidelines as you would with any project that has an addition that has an impact on neighbors. it's up to the board to look at

the merits of this permit and this permit alone. the other history has been resolved -- maybe not to everyone's satisfaction, but it has been resolved, and this is just a permit for the vertical addition. >> commissioner swig: so the things that generally historically i get all bent out of shape about are roof decks when they are -- become beacons or they become oversized. are these -- and beacons are beacons -- refer to beacons of light. meaning, that emanate so much light that they bleed into neighbors' windows next door, i don't see any of it, but do you see -- they don't seem large enough, or glass -- is there any reason to believe that these will become beacons and

present disturbances simply by their existence? >> according to the opinion of the planning department, these would not be beacons and would not impact open space. there is not a ton of glazing at this -- the fourth floor addition, and i think several years ago, we had a project out in seacliff that was more of the apple store. i think it was described as an all glazing. >> president honda: it was called fish bowl, by the way. >> yes. this is a different design that i think is not going to have a negative impact. >> commissioner swig: okay. secondly, the other thing that i generally rant about is that this building would be out of the character of the neighborhood, but in this case, this building has already been built, so its existing massing,

it exists. it's not new to the neighborhood. it has existed for a long period of time, and therefore, it has become the neighborhood character. is that fair to characterize it in that fashion? >> yes, and we stated that in our discretionary review, and it was the reason for our discretionary review that we want it had reduced from what was -- wanted it reduced from what was proposed because of the mass. this complies with the vertical height limits, but with the changes that the planning commission adopted, this is compatible with the district. >> commissioner swig: those three issues are my concerns, and you've satisfied them. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: we're still on rebuttal. would the department of building inspection like to

weigh-in? >> commissioners, nothing to add. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: who would like to start off first? >> commissioner swig: well, i'll go. >> president honda: i knew that was going to be you. >> commissioner swig: i am deeply sympathetic to the neighbor -- the neighbors and the neighborhood reaction to this because change in every case just about scares the heck out of neighbors, and especially a change in the amount of occupancy in a building. however, we are hear to evaluate whether planning presented this -- this permit in an appropriate fashion.

i do not see -- and this is why i asked the questions that i just did. i don't see that they deviated from any of their standards, and i think they issued this permit correctly and appropriately, and i really don't see how this body can deny this permit and uphold any appeal. >> president honda: okay. any other commissioners? i guess i'll chime in. so i somewhat agree -- or i agree with my vice president. as a long-term resident of the sunset who still lives in the sunset, you know, i see the value of rent control, and when people say market rents, i remember when $400 or $500 was the market rent, and it's nice to see that some of those people are still there with their half percent or 2% over

30 or $30 years, and they're paying -- or 30 years, and they're paying $610 a month. at the same time, i remember when the outer sunset was not a desirable place, and now, we have double bakerys which used to be a fotomat. i was sad when the ice rink went away. there are two issues, and being a long-term resident of the sunset, people still consider the spot in front of their house their parking spot to this very day. you know, that's something that's changing, and overall, as it's been said several times, the amount of density in

our district as -- someone mentioned they're in the mission. the density in that district has been increased, like, a gazillion fold. when projects like this come into effect, they're upset because they're demolitioning the building or they're evicting existing tenants. in this case, it's a building that is completely oversized for the lot, but they're keeping that building. yes, they increased the usage, and they're moving the garages, so you're going to have that many units in that building without a garage. i think 400 square feet on the deck is kind of large, but as the appellant mentioned, we have 50° weather. i can open the door right now and have the wind blow through

my house. there's not a lot of glazing. glazing these windows and coverage, it may not be that comfortable to be out there on the fourth story three blocks from the beach or four blocks or five blocks from the beach. so i know it's not a popular decision, but they didn't evict anyone, they didn't ellis act anyone, and i think perpetuity is important as well as tenant rights. i am ultimately in support of the project. i believe commissioner chan has a comment. >> commissioner chan: thank you, president honda. i want to respect the appellant's time and their position. i agree that change is challenging, and this is already a fairly large building

in the neighborhood, however, i think given the circumstances and also given the layout and size of the building, i think this addition is actually quite modest, and i think through the changes that are made and the fact that the planning department wouldn't support a variant decision for exposure, i think that this is quite modest and think that -- agree that the permit was properly issued. >> president honda: unless there's any comment, would someone like to make a motion? >> commissioner chan: i move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the motion on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so that motion carries, 4-0, and the appeal is denied. thank you. we are now moving onto item 10, special item. consideration and possible adoption of a resolution encouraging the establishment of notice requirements to all tenants of a residential building before and after permitted are issued to add accessory dwelling units. so as you may recall, vice president swig asked for this matter to be put on the agenda. we did have a similar item a couple of years ago, so vice president swig, would you like to go ahead and address the board on this? >> commissioner swig: sure. thank you very much. let me take a sip of water because my voice is failing. a couple years ago, and i

always forget the detail on the board, but the -- whether it be small grandmother units which were occupied in a noncompliant fashion and were being legalized or larger buildings of tens or dozens of units, that there seemed to have been an on going issue of tenants, whether legal or illegal, not being provided any notice whatsoever when a permit was being sought by the building owner, and then no notice with

regard to what was being done and the notice to the tenants. and i kind of look at what's being done and the neighborhood and our streets are hallways, but it's the same thing. there's a group of people living in the neighborhood, and if there's a major disruptive construction project, in consideration of good manners, they should be noticed if their quality of life is at risk of being impacted or the ability in which they live, that would be their neighborhood, is at risk of being significantly changed in its character. and so in that spirit -- and, of course, without that notice, what we've experienced manifests itself, and that is very cranky tenants and who

feel that they are being abused and dismissed by their owners. that is why i suggested that we send a memo to the board of supervisors suggesting their attention to this issue, and with some protection and buffer given to tenants of apartment buildings where major construction was about to occur. obviously, the situation has been exacerbated by the new a.d.u. laws which are very beneficial to the city in that they create more affordable housing, but at the same time,

it also -- that benefit also creates more problems for existing tenants and buildings where a.d.u. expansions are occurring. so that is the spirit of why we sent the memo in the first place, and our hearing last week where i believe there were 45 tenants in a building under significant renovation in a building with a.d.u.s was perceived as harmful by those tenants because they were not noticed. they were not advised of the plans. they were just surprised it was happening, that stimulated by initial suggestion to the board of supervisors that some action should be happening. thank you.

>> president honda: thank you. commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: so i think that we, as a board, over my tenure, shown restraint in the number of communications that we've issued on topics where we've seen a pattern of cases that haven't been heeded. i certainly support bringing this to the attention of the board of supervisors. >> president honda: thank you. i totally concur. as vice president swig mentioned, they started with over 47 units and had less than 20, and their argument was they created new space. so they created three units and got rid of 20 tenants. >> commissioner swig: rent controlled tenants, by the way.

>> president honda: overall, you can't villainize a lot of the builders. we have a lot of good builders in our city, and we typically see our frequent flyers and i think that's what legislation has created. i think it's absurd that you can tell someone on friday that you're going to disrupt their services on friday. when you buy the building, no matter what you pay for it, you're subject to tenant rights. i strongly support you in asking the board for some

protection of their space. that's their home. the fact that these last guys used the passenger elevator for their demostuff, and that passenger elevator just could not handle the stress. so how do you tell someone on the sixth floor that's 70 years old or even 30 with a broken leg that you have to hobble down five flights of stairs, so i think that's a good start, to be honest. >> commissioner chan: i think it's a fair -- i think it's a fair request. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. okay. the departments want to comment on this item? the planning department or department of building

inspection? >> scott sanchez, planning department. no comment. thank you. >> clerk: we have a question from commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: is the notice of requirement the burden of the property owner, and is it their responsibility to, like, actually print the notices and put them up? i think that's a question we should probably answer because oftentimes, the burden falls on the department to, like, print them all. >> president honda: that's the thing, it's not a requirement. so we're having bad actors -- commonsense is if you disrupt your tenants, we say tina, we're going to do this required work to the elevator. it's going to begin in two weeks. >> i understand. we have a resolution before the board of supervisors, and are we proposing that the notice be printed in a standard format by

the property owners and that it be required within a certain number of days because there's already a ton of noticing requirements and, you know, we would probably have to standardize themselves somehow or -- that's a detail that would need to be resolved. >> commissioner swig: can i interrupt -- [inaudible]. >> president honda: -- that's going to disrupt your 47-unit building. i don't know how rick thinks about it. i don't think two weeks are enough, but i don't think we can ask for more than that. >> commissioner lazarus: i think we can let the board of supervisors handle it. i don't want to get into the details because i don't know enough. >> president honda: i agree. >> commissioner swig: guys, this is the exact same conversation that we had last

time, and commissioner -- tina, we had this conversation. we got into the same weeds, and we resolved that we would leave it to the board of supervisors to, at their discretion, to deal with this. our primary goal is to, one, call to the attention that there are citizens that may be being abused through the lack of a noticing requirement right now, so it's their responsibility to either prioritize that issue and decide to create some guidelines or legislation to create the opportunity of noticing and a review of -- and to necessitate that plans will

be shown to tenants in buildings undergoing major renovation. but we decided last time that we would leave those details and those policies to the board of supervisors and simply leave it there. there's something that could be improved in our community, and we're advising them to do that. >> commissioner chan: thanks. >> commissioner swig: hope that answers that. >> president honda: and our executive director is so eloquent with how she words stuff. >> clerk: i did it the same way as the last time. >> president honda: so what would we need for that? >> clerk: yeah. so we would need a motion to adopt the resolution -- >> president honda: i'll make that motion. >> clerk: and we would forward it to the board of supervisors, planning department, and department of building inspection. >> president honda: i make a

motion -- >> clerk: motion to adopt the resolution and forward it to the appropriate department? >> president honda: you're so good at that. >> clerk: we have a motion by commissioner honda to draft a resolution and forward it to the appropriate department that resolution. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner chan: i just have one question. given that the last attempt didn't advance, i'm just curious -- >> president honda: no, every time we've done it, they listen to us. they attempted to do something, and they depended on the developer to be responsible, and unfortunately, at this point, consumer protection takes over. so second time, i don't think you'll have to worry about anything. they'll listen a little bit.

>> clerk: okay. [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 4-0, and the resolution is adopted. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> president honda: thank you, everybody. have a good evening, and tina, this is only 8:30. we used to go to 1:00. >> clerk: yeah, this is great. >> commissioner swig: anything before 10:00 is great. >> president honda: good night, everyone.

>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was,

like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is

the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the

water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like,

calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring my family to the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being

in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general.

>> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world.

it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after >> you're watching "coping with covid-19" with chris manners. today's special guest is katie birdbaum. >> hi, i'm chris manners and you're watching "coping with covid-19." my guest is katie birdbalm. she's here today to talk about san francisco city programs which transforms city streets

into car-free spaces. the program's beginning to start up again. ms. birdbalm, welcome to the show. >> thank you, chris, i'm excited to be here. >> before we get into the details, can you give us a brief overview of how it works. >> yeah. it's san francisco's open streets program and it was founded in 2008 as a mayoral initiative under mayor gavin newsome the now governor. the climate change equity program. to be able to transform our streets. the community spaces allow communities historically underserved and suffer from higher rates of preventable diseases can be connected to healthy eating, active living activities and really connect to the rest of the city as well and so that's how we got started in 2008. >> i know that some small scale

events started up again in april. could you police man where they were. how they managed safety and what they managed to do? >> yeah. absolutely. we still are in the waning days of the pandemic. we're there, so we do have some safety protocols in place. but we really were able to bring back sunday streets this april. we celebrated the opening of a biking and walking path in the bayview indian basin shoreline. we were able to offer fitness classes and things like that as well as covid-19 testing. along the water front and a way for people to basically celebrate our new walking and biking path and be able to get outside and exercise while still being totally safe in terms of covid compliance and

plenty of social distancing and ability to control who and where you're around. >> that's great. what can we look forward to in may? i've heard there's going to be new ways to celebrate carnival and cinco de mayo. >> yeah. so one thing we've been partnering with san francisco and carnival. there are a lot of large festivals. they've had to change some of their programming to compliance needs and the health and safety needs of our community, but that does not stop the fabulous spirit of carnival coming to san francisco. but we're going to continue our partnership this year and they're going to continue a health and wellness fair. so they're able to access the critical covid-19 resources and also be able to experience some beautiful cultural performances

in a safe, compliant format. we're able to do that with them again this year, so we're really excited to bring that program back out and we're helping offer some fitness classes around their health and safety fairs. that's going to be a beautiful way to celebrate spring and celebrate the culture that san francisco is known for around the world and then also with that, we're going to be doing a bike ride with them on cinco de mayo, so helping support the latino taskforce food hub and they're organizing a bike ride and active living. we're going to be supporting that and riding out with carnival on cinco de mayo. >> that's cool. we haven't talked about walkway weekends yet. is that an ongoing event? >> yeah, so walkway weekend is one of the anchor sites for this year. so, you know, as part of covid

compliance, we're not able to do big events, but we're doing a lot of smaller activation city rides and walkway weekends in chinatown is one of our anchor sites throughout the year. so we were able to access grant avenue car-free, that's from california to washington car-free every saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and it's full with kind of the beautiful culture and art that is chinatown all the time. kind of a fun way to experience that with plenty of extra room in the street. also, as little extra room for us to have things like a lion dance. there's an exhibition that's there every saturday. we're also going to be offering some fitness classes as well as other cultural programming as we're allowed to do it as things open up. >> these events take a lot of planning. i require a variety of resources to get off the ground. i know you work closely with

the sfmta and the department of public health to organize them, but could you talk a little bit about the partnerships that make the sunday streets program possible and explain why they're so important? >> yeah. absolutely. sunday streets really at its core, you know, i work for a nonprofit called "livable city" and we hold the city streets program and at the center of it, it's been a partnership program. so they're transforming miles anywhere from 1 to 4 miles of city streets into car-free community spaces filling those with community groups, nonprofits, business activities and just kind of unique san francisco treasures wanting to bring their specialness to the streets. it really has always been a partnership program. it's quite literally magic when all of these streets can transform within just a couple of, you know, we end up doing it in about 30 to 45 minutes where we transform 1 to 4 miles

of streets into car-free community spaces. every city agency supports it as well as hundreds of community partners. it's a whole family of partners that are stepping forward to make sure that that space and that opportunity is being offered to the community in san francisco. >> could you talk about the four concepts of sunday streets. i understand you have something in the planning stages for october and, do you think our residents will be ready for large events by then? >> well, we do have something brewing for october and very much, you know, to answer your question, are people going to be ready to be together and in crowds again? that is part of our strategy for the rides together season as we are starting now with small, like i said, very small comfortable, safe format with not that many people at it, so people can start getting used to being out and about again, right and that it is an

activity that can be safe and enjoyable and really just start getting their feet wet in that type of community activity. so the hope is that, you know, we are able to throughout the spring and summer and into the early parts of the fall really get people used to being again in community again for ability for us to be able to come back in full force, sometime in the late fall. so we're looking at october is what we're looking at and the hopes is that we can actually create miles of streets for us to come out and celebrate in. you know, we're obviously going to be watching the public health directives and as they unfold and follow them and make sure we're keeping all the community members safe and we'll make adjustments as needed. but the way things are trending right now, we should be able to be out together by the fall in a way that looks and feels a

lot more like it used to for sunday streets. >> i'm really excited to see the city open up again and what you're doing with the sunday streets program is promising. and i want to thank you for coming on the show today. this has been really encouraging. >> thank you, chris. we're excited to see everybody out in the streets sometime when it's safe. >> thanks again. that's it for this episode. we'll be back with more updates shortly. you've been watching "coping with covid-19." for sfgov tv, i'm chris manners. thanks for watching.

>> clerk: everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment on each item on today's agenda. opportunities to submit public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-756-9079. when