>> 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 myown number 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. >> restaurants will be open for take out only, but nonessential stores, like bars and gyms, will close effective midnight

tonight. [♪♪♪] >> my name is sharky laguana. i am a small business owner. i own a company called vandigo van rentals. it rents vans to the music industry. i am also a member of the small business commission as appointed by mayor breed in 2019. i am a musician and have worked as a professional musician and recording artist in the 90s. [♪♪♪] >> we came up in san francisco, so i've played at most of the

live venues as a performer, and, of course, i've seen hundreds of shows over the years, and i care very, very deeply about live entertainment. in fact, when i joined the commission, i said that i was going to make a particular effort to pay attention to the arts and entertainment and make sure that those small businesses receive the level of attention that i think they deserve. >> this is a constantly and rapidly changing situation, and we are working hard to be aggressive to flatten the curve to disrupt the spread of covid-19. >> when the pandemic hit, it was crystal clear to me that this was devastating to the music industry because live venues had to completely shutdown. there was no way for them to open for even a single day or

in limited capacity. that hit me emotionally as an artist and hit me professionally, as well as a small business that caters to artists, so i was very deeply concerned about what the city could do to help the entertainment committee. we knew we needed somebody to introduce some kind of legislation to get the ball rolling, and so we just started texting supervisor haney, just harassing him, saying we need to do something, we need to do something. he said i know we need to do something, but what do we do? we eventually settled on this idea that there would be an independent venue recovery fund. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this resolution is passed unanimously. >> and we were concerned for these small mom-and-pop

businesses that contribute so much to our arts community. >> we are an extremely small venue that has the capacity to do extremely small shows. most of our staff has been working for us for over ten years. there's very little turnover in the staff, so it felt like family. sharky with the small business commission was crucial in pestering supervisor haney and others to really keep our industry top of mind. we closed down on march 13 of 2020 when we heard that there was an order to do so by the mayor, and we had to call that show in the middle of the

night. they were in the middle of their sound check, and i had to call the venue and say, we need to cancel the show tonight. >> the fund is for our live music and entertainment venues, and in its first round, it will offer grants of at least $10,000 to qualifying venues. these are venues that offer a signature amount of live entertainment programming before the pandemic and are committed to reopening and offering live entertainment spaces after the pandemic. >> it's going to, you know, just stave off the bleeding for a moment. it's the city contributing to helping make sure these venues are around, to continue to be part of the economic recovery for our city. >> when you think about the venues for events in the city, we're talking about all of

them. some have been able to come back adaptively over the last year and have been able to be shape shifters in this pandemic, and that's exciting to see, but i'm really looking forward to the day when events and venues can reopen and help drive the recovery here in san francisco. >> they have done a study that says for every dollar of ticket sales done in this city, $12 goes to neighboring businesses. from all of our vendors to the restaurants that are next to our ven sues and just so many other things that you can think of, all of which have been so negatively affected by covid. for this industry to fail is unthinkable on so many levels. it's unheard of, like, san francisco without its music scene would be a terribly

dismal place. >> i don't know that this needs to be arrest -- that there needs to be art welfare for artists. we just need to live and pay for our food, and things will take care of themselves. i think that that's not the given situation. what san francisco could do that they don't seem to do very much is really do something to support these clubs and venues that have all of these different artists performing in them. actually, i think precovid, it was, you know, don't have a warehouse party and don't do a gig. don't go outside, and don't do this. there was a lot of don't, don't, don't, and after the pandemic, they realized we're a big industry, and we bring a lot of money into this city, so they need to encourage and hope these venues. and then, you know, as far as people like me, it would be nice if you didn't only get encouraged for only singing

opera or playing violin. [♪♪♪] >> entertainment is a huge part of what is going to make this city bounce back, and we're going to need to have live music coming back, and comedy, and drag shows and everything under the sun that is fun and creative in order to get smiles back on our faces and in order to get the city moving again. [♪♪♪] >> venues serve a really vital function in society. there aren't many places where people from any walk of life, race, religion, sexuality can come together in the same room and experience joy, right? experience love, experience

anything that what makes us human, community, our connective tissues between different souls. if we were to lose this, lose this situation, you're going to lose this very vital piece of society, and just coming out of the pandemic, you know, it's going to help us recover socially? well, yeah, because we need to be in the same room with a bunch of people, and then help people across the country recover financially. >> san francisco art recovery fund, amazing. it opened yesterday on april 21. applications are open through may 5. we're encouraging everyone in the coalition to apply. there's very clear information on what's eligible, but that's basically been what our coalition has been advocating for from the beginning. you know, everyone's been supportive, and they've all been hugely integral to this program getting off the ground. you know, we found our champion

with supervisor matt haney from district six who introduced this legislation and pushed this into law. mayor breed dedicated $1.5 million this fund, and then supervisor haney matched that, so there's $3 million in this fund. this is a huge moment for our coalition. it's what we've been fighting for all along. >> one of the challenges of our business is staying on top of all the opportunities as they come back. at the office of oewd, office of economic and workforce development, if you need to speak to somebody, you can find people who can help you navigate any of the available programs and resources. >> a lot of blind optimism has kept us afloat, you know, and there's been a lot of reason for despair, but this is what keeps me in the business, and this is what keeps me fighting,

you know, and continuing to advocate, is that we need this and this is part of our life's blood as much as oxygen and food is. don't lose heart. look at there for all the various grants that are available to you. some of them might be very slow to unrao, and it might seem like too -- unroll, and it might seem like it's too late, but people are going to fight to keep their beloved venues open, and as a band, you're going to be okay. [♪♪♪]

>> well, good morning, everybody, and welcome to union square. hello, san francisco. it's a beautiful sunny day here, and the fog has lifted, perhaps like the collective proverbial covid fog that we've all been stuck in the last year. my name is karen flood, and i'm the executive director of the union square business district, and we're so pleased to see you today, and so many visitors. we have missed you all. we have missed the visitors and the workers in union square who come here to dine in our fine restaurants and stay in our beautiful hotels and dine in our shops. but we know they will be back, and we know that mayor breed has been focused in this last year on keeping us safe and healthy, and we appreciate that. she's been laser focused on making sure that everybody is healthy and distancing and we

are getting vaccinated, so excellent job, mayor breed. [applause] >> but now it is time to turn to recovery and renewal. we know here in san francisco, we are resilient and strong. we have survived fires and earthquakes, and we have survived this, and we will come back. workers have also worked alongside the retired sfpd ambassadors, which has become an incredible plan and was the idea of mayor london breed to add an additional layer of safety in union square. we know there are additional

resources on the way, which we will talk about in a moment. we convened an economic task force for union square. let's liven up these spaces, starting with union square. people come here to protest, hopefully peacefully. people come to people watch in our cafes, which are open, so hopefully they will do that again. and now if we could just get our beloved cable car and back and running before september. how about june, when the tourists are here? that would really be a signal that san francisco is back open and ready for business. but without further adieu, i would like to introduce someone that needs no further introduction, mayor london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, karen. i'm not only excited to be in

union square, but i'm excited to be anywhere in san francisco as we start the process to reopen and imagine what the city can be as we come out of this pandemic. it's been a tough year. it's been a tough, tough year because our focus has been on public health and saving lives. it's been a tough year for business, it's been a tough year for tourism, it's been a tough year for employees in san francisco. we keep talking about this light at the end of the tunnel. well, today, it's bright in union square, and i'm excited about the future of union square and our city. i just wanted to take the opportunity to name a few people that are here today, a few of which you will hear from. the new director of the arts commission in san francisco, ralph remington, and ralph,

you're going to have to take your mask off in the street so we recognize you. she's the new director for the grants for the arts, but she's been advocating for so many arts businesses in san francisco. we have vallie brown, the director of grants for the arts, and our new director of the office of economic and workforce development. you'll hear from the other two speakers that are joining us, and i'll introduce them, and i want to recognize deputy chief of the san francisco police department. thank you, chief lozar. i want to say captain, but you went from a captain, and you've moved on up in the ranks, and we appreciate you and the san francisco police department and everything you do to keep our citizens safe. we also have -- thank you, karen, and the union street bid

for your work because i know that your work and your advocacy is why we're here today. it is a great day in san francisco, and when you think about where we are now and how far we've come, just sit in that moment. the giants are first place in the league. they're not first place anymore? okay. all right. well, we hope that the giants will become first place in the league. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: but they're playing, and you can go to a game. unfortunately, the warriors didn't make it through, but that's okay. at least we got a few games in before they were x'ed out of the playoffs. and what's also happening is the san francisco symphony is open. you can watch a performance there. stern grove is coming back, and it's going to be amazing. the hilton hotel just announced

that it's going to be open. john's grill, i know john, jr. is here. thank you for joining us here. performances on sundays, and so many activities, so many great events. the city is coming alive again, and as we begin to recover and think about what happens in union square, downtown is about where 40% of the jobs that exist in san francisco, they're here in the downtown area. when we think about the economy and coming back, the retail and the business and the activities, this is the bread and butter of san francisco. this is why we are able to pay for programs and resources and all the things that help out so many of our vulnerable communities. the tourists, the 20 million tourists who visit san francisco every year that pay the hotel tax, that shop at

macy's and a number of our businesses. it's important that as we reopen, we reimagine what downtown can be. we have to make it a safe place for people who live and work here. now i'm a regular visitor to the downtown area, and i do hear from so many of the people who work here, many in particular women who work in retail, who catch the 31 balboa and the 5 fulton from the western addition, people who i grew up with who have expressed to me about their concerns for their safety and they've never felt that way in san francisco before. what that means is we have to do more. we have to do more to keep people safe. we have to make sure that we do more to make sure that people have a rewarding experience because when people visit san francisco and they come here, we want them to want to come back. now it's been about, i think, two years, when i announced the

ambassador program. karen, you remember when i had that event, and i said we're going to bring retired police officers out of retirement and have an ambassador program solely focused on this particular area in union square. after a few years of bureaucracy, it finally happened, so right now, that ambassador program is really an important part of our recovery. the goal is to have the eyes and the ears on the streets. the goal is to make sure that when people are in crisis, we're able to address those challenges, and a perfect example is one time, when i was down here near crate and barrel, a man didn't have shoes on, needed some support, and some ambassadors tried to help him, but what's next? what's next? how do we get him off the streets so he can get the support he needs, and part of

our recent announcements have been the street crisis response teams, our street wellness teams to check on people to deal with folks in crisis. i get so many calls from so many people in this community concerned about not just their business and how this is impacting the quality of life in this community but how are we going to do more to help these people off the streets? and so a combination of my investments in this upcoming budget have everything to do with trying to reimagine, beautify, provide the level necessary to bring this area back stronger than ever, to make it a vibrant, a more welcoming place and make sure that people have great experiences. so what do some of those investments look like? well, some of you remember i used to be the executive director of the african american art and culture complex, and the thing i loved

about that space is artists make communities come alive. people would paint on the walls. i'm not advising that to happen here in downtown. people would dance in the parking lot and in the streets. i'm not suggesting that we do that and stop traffic, but we are going to bring our artists to this area. we are going to start to activate the community with local artists, providing resources to pay them because i believe in paying artists and they deserve to be paid their worth, but to really bring them to this area and to create an environment at holiday plaza that will really activate the area. so we're going to be making some improvements and some investments, and yes, i'd like the cable cars to come back sooner rather than later, but i can't make that promise today, karen. but the fact is we're going to activate holiday plaza, we're going to bring in some new businesses, so when you're

getting off b.a.r.t. and coming to san francisco, the first thing you can do is grab a coffee or a san francisco coffee mug and have this great holiday plaza experience. it will be activated, our ambassadors will be in the location, it will be safe, and our goal is to have great and rewarding experiences. so part of the goals will be not just to increase the experiences with the retired police officers but the ambassadors and the people that walk around this community and try to provide eyes and ears on the streets to address many of those challenges. so our ambassadors in the red coats are joining us here today, so thank you for your success and your continued support in this community. they may not recognize me in disguise, but i've seen them out on the streets, offering people bottled water.

we'll be concentrating our street crisis response teams in this area so when we see anyone in crisis, we can focus on this area so all of you can focus on your businesses. that is our goal. the other thing that we are doing as we head down this road to recovery is we're really trying to focus on how do we make it easier to do business in san francisco. i'm not even going to name the stores that i love that closed because i'm heartbroken that they're no longer in san francisco. i've reached out to a number of them, and they said they may come back, but they told me, look, doing business in san francisco is hard. i put out a business recovery plan that's supposed to be working its way through the board of supervisors. i put out a plan to make our shared spaces program permanent that's supposed to be making its way through the board of

supervisors. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: but the board has messed with the wrong mayor. when they tried to butcher my legislation and water it down and make it even more difficult and complicated so businesses continued to struggle and had difficulty doing business in san francisco, that's when i take a different sort of action. so if they want to continue down that path, my plan is to bring it to the voters, to put it on the ballot, and to make sure you all have a real voice and that the voters support these efforts. overwhelmingly, the people of this city, people who grow up and want to start their own small business, they shouldn't need $250,000 to give to the water department or some angel investor just because they want to sell their clothing or their masks or their artwork. it should not be so difficult. and as i said time and time again, my focus is to cut the

bureaucratic red tape that makes it impossible for people to do business in san francisco. because it's not just about creating an economic opportunity for the people starting these businesses, it's about creating jobs, it's about creating an increased tax base to support all these services that we all want to support communities in san francisco. it goes hand in hand, so i am making that clear today that if the board continues down this path, my plan is to bring it to the voters, and i know that you all will be with me when i do it at that time. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so here's a couple of official announcements that i think i might have forgotten about. that's why i had to write them down. community ambassadors in union square in downtown. s.f. wednesdays, a local artist

will be performing in july from 12:00 to 6:00. a series of performing -- performances at the former temporary transbay terminal, so activating that area downtown, and we're going to start ramping up in july throughout the summer months because we know that we need to change this area, we need to make sure it comes alive, and i am so excited to the activation and the people eating at the various restaurants, shopping at the various stores, or just sitting right here in union square and people watching just because we miss seeing faces. eventually, these masks, they're going to hopefully go away, but in the meantime, continue to shine, san francisco. we are open for business. thank you all so much for being here today, and i want to introduce peter from sam's

grill. [applause] >> thank you. as you know -- well, first of all, i want to thank the mayor and her team because it's a well thought out plan. i mean, it's necessary. we need to revitalize downtown san francisco, and as a small business owner, we spend a great deal of time here. we're here morning, noon, and night. sam's grill has been a part of this community since 1867. we've seen it all. if our walls could talk, which is a whole different story, so we'll leave that for another time, but we've seen it all, and we've recovered from it and look forward to the future. after clocking in for 150 years, i feel as if downtown san francisco is still a bit of a secret, and we're primed and ready for it to be rediscovered. i'm very pleased that small business is a component of this

plan. downtown, as the mayor said, is the economic engine of the city, and at this time, any support we have is greatly appreciated. we have the infrastructure in place. we have beautiful architecture, we have transportation hubs, we have parking, we have gathering spots, and now, we're starting to improve, and we have a vibrant history, and let's keep that all alive and well. i'm excited about the effort to regain our commitment to helping people revisit downtown with new eyes, and there's no better way to do this than to be kind and inclusive. we really want to create an environment where people feel vibrant, where people feel comfortable, and they want to return to. at the end of the day, we're all human beings, and that's the bottom line, so the next time i see you, i hope it's in a booth at sam's or in the

dining room or in sam's tavern. i invite you all to revisit san francisco, to revisit downtown, to enjoy it because we're made for this. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, peter, and i want to recognize laurie thomas from the golden gate restaurant association. thank you so much for being here, and i also want to say thank you to the downtown fisherman's wharf, yerba buena, and east court benefit district, the san francisco chamber of commerce, kevin carroll's joining us, s.f. travel, the bar owners association. i think that's you behind that mask. thank you, ben. the directors of all the city departments i mentioned before. also, separately from the city departments i mentioned before, i want to mention the city

administrator carmen chiu and the department of public works. i've been wearing a lot of masks during this pandemic. i would say the majority of masks that i wear look like they are very artistic and beautiful, and they usually match my outfits. not as nice as nancy pelosi and the matching of her outfits, but pretty darn close, and the person that makes these masks is an incredible local artist who's really been a fierce advocate for a lot of the programs and the investments that we're making. as a result of her advocacy, what we're doing in her budget is backfilling some of the grants for the artists in the grants for the arts program, and we'll continue to provide first-ever guaranteed income for artists here in san francisco, a program that was recently launched. so many great things for artists, because let's face it, artists really make magic

happen. they make things come alive through performance and the visual arts, and it's time to talk about the arts related components for our downtown is deborah walker. [applause] >> good morning. i want to, first off, thank our mayor for the work she's done to have our city recover as it has for all of us, but especially for our arts community very early on in the process of dealing with the issue of covid here in the city, the mayor stepped up and protected the funding for our arts organizations and our artists citywide so that after school programs and education pods and the creative corps which actually brought artists in to deliver food, vaccines, testing, all of the things associated with recovery, and the mayor actually stepped

forward and made that happen. the arts contribute over $1.7 million a year into our economy every year. san francisco is an arts city. it's also important to know that for every dollar invested in the arts with grant programs, etc., you get a 17-fold return, so it's smart, efficient, and it also, as the mayor pointed out, it's where the spirit of our city comes from. every community of our community -- you see the paint the void has managed the mural projects on all of the shuttered -- the businesses that put wood on the front of their businesses. we brought artists to paint murals all across town. when allowed, we brought in small performance and art into the shared spaces program, which now is going to be made

permanent. this is also important because this is really sort of where these ideas come from. when the mayor put together her economic task force to make recommendations on how to help sectors recover, she appointed over a dozen arts professionals not just to talk about the arts but to engage in with all of the different sectors to imagine how arts can be used as the catalyst it is. it's the magic the mayor talked about. we've all experienced it, and certainly, we've all felt the absence of it until we started doing all these programs, so the mayor deserves a whole lot of credit for all of these ideas. this is part of what we talked about in the task force is activating around the city's open spaces where it makes sense and as appropriate and as allowed by the regulations to

actually create, bring artists that are local together. i'm sure we'll also have some big name san francisco artists that are a part of this process. downtown is devastated, and the last group to open are the offices and the restaurants, the inside bars, night time entertainment. the artists community has been devastated. one of the sectors with the highest unemployment rate, so this is the opportunity to really open up our city again. my hope is that this infrastructure that creates these performance opportunities can then be spread out into all of our neighborhoods where we have these shared spaces. the hope is that we have these events downtown and folks from the sunset and richmond and marina will come down and remember what it's like to be here. so the arts -- the arts are a catalyst, you know? it is the magic that we need.

there's a reason why the w.p.a. included so many murals that we see today. this is history. you know, going through what we went through is history. i'm excited about our new leadership. directors remington and brown and our new director of economic activity in the city, kate sophis. all of these folks know our city, know our arts, and are going to be doing more of these different type of projects, so i'm just grateful, mayor, and thank you so much, and thank you all. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: when i was in high school in san francisco at galileo high school, nothing made me more excited than out of nowhere, when we were out in the courtyard, the music would blast in the p.a., and then,

there was this whole pep rally for home coming. those kinds of things would happen all the time, and part of what gets a community alive and rooting for san francisco has to do with things all of a sudden out of nowhere wherein a plaza like this, you see artists dancing and performing. everyone stops in their tracks to look, and it puts a smile on people's faces. holiday plaza, out of nowhere, people were dancing and performing as people were waiting in line to get their coffee. just imagine if people are expanding and providing entertainment in a way that really puts a smile on people's face as they are waiting for the cable car. activation has everything to do with making people feel good and feel alive and feel happy about their experience in san francisco. so i'm taking my high school experience, my experience as a former arts director and trying

to make sure that everyone has a very similar experience all over san francisco. yes, i love the symphony. i used to play french horn. i was okay. that was in junior high, but you shouldn't have to only be able to go to the symphony to have that experience. just imagine the symphony playing here outdoors, where everyone gets that experience. that's what opera in the park is all about, that's what these great activities are about, and that's how we're going to get life back. making the right investments, keeping people safe, cleaning up our city, and umm canning together just -- and coming together just like we did to fight this pandemic. we're coming together from a very challenging time, and we're going to do so with a smile on our face. thank you all so much for joining us here today. [applause] .

>> president koppel: may 27, 2021 remote hearings require everyone'sattention and thus yo