magnuson. honda will be the presiding officer tonight. also present is deputy city attorney brad russi will provide any needed legal advice this evening. -- so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants, permit holders and respondent are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people associated with the proceedings must complete their comments within the seven or

three-minute proceedings. people not affiliated with the proceedings have three minutes to complete their comments, and if there are a large number of public commenters or public comment is going to be lengthy, we have the right to limit public comment to two minutes. a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our

website at sfgov.org/boa. now public comment can be provided in two ways. one, you can join the zoom meet ing by computer. go to our web site and click on the link or call 669-900-6833, and enter the webinar i.d. 821-8043-0143. to raise your hand, press star,

nine to speak. if any of the participants are attendees on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request to alice longway, the board's technical assistant or send an e-mail to sfgov.org. please note that the chat function cannot be used to enter public opinion. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, i swear or i affirm. do you solemnly swear that the

testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? we are now on item number 1, which is general public comment. this is for anyone who would like to speak on any matter in the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone who would like to speak? okay. i see one hand raised. okay. tommy gill, please go ahead. tommy gill, are you here for general public comment? >> no. i apologize. i did not mean to raise my hand to speak. >> clerk: no problem. is there anyone here for general public comment? okay. mr. gill, let me lower your hand. we'll move onto item 2,

commissioner comments and questions. >> president honda: i'll move onto commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: really delighted that you're here, and if there's anything that i can do to help you, let me know, but a very warm welcome. >> president honda: hear, hear. >> commissioner swig: [inaudible] we're very happy to have you and welcome to the board of appeals of san francisco. >> president honda:

commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: [inaudible] but commissioner lopez, we're thrilled to hear you, and as commissioner lazarus, please feel free to reach out if we have any questions or if we can be helpful. >> president honda: and finally, welcome, jose. are you sure you want to do this? reading your background and experience prior, i'm so happy to see that you're going to participate on our board. the legal beagle is what we need, and you are the legal

beagle. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on item 2, please raise your hand. i see one hand raised -- >> operator: i believe mr. lopez would like to speak. >> president honda: his first words. >> clerk: commissioner lopez, welcome. >> commissioner lopez: yes, thank you for the warm welcome. i want to thank all of my fellow commissioners for their warm welcome. i just was approved by the board of supervisors yesterday and just sworn in this morning. i'm here with you for the first time this evening, and i hope that's a sign of being able to work closely together and expeditiously to get through our calendar, and very excited

to serve alongside you for the people of san francisco. definitely looking forward to speaking to each commissioner who i haven't had a chance to engage with individually yet. yeah, onward. >> president honda: wait for a month. you won't be saying that when we have our first 1:00 meeting -- no. >> clerk: okay. if you wish to make public comment, please raise your hand. okay. there's no public comment, so we'll move onto item 3, adoption of minutes. commissioners, before you is

the discussion and possible adoption of the july 21, 2021 minutes. >> president honda: unless there's someone that wants to add anything, i'll take a motion to approve. >> commissioner swig: i'll make a motion to approve. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the july 21 minutes. is there any public comment on that motion? please raise your hand. okay. there's no public comment, so -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries 5-0, and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving onto item 4-a, b, c, and d. this is rabinowitz, magnuson, yasuda, and sato. this is 1318 18 street, pealing the issuance on june 14, 2021 to mr. thomas frenkel, of an alteration permit, constructing a wood platform over an existing concrete patio,

install an automatic door opener and activation switches. mr. rabinowitz, we will hear your appeal now. >> blum has a multidecade pattern of ignoring noise ordinances. when i have called them, they have hung up on me in the bar because it was too loud to talk, ignored me when i called them back, and even throwing me out of the bar. their amplified music emanates into my house until 2:00 a.m. every year. i hear it almost every weekend every day. the exhibits in my brief clearly show blum's patrons on both the older concrete patio and the new illegally built deck. the intention of the deck is not for storage, it was for customers. that is why there is a roof, tables, chairs, t.v., heaters, lowered viewing fence, and such are built up. i've submitted pictures of all

of this in my brief which clearly violates the city's planning code. now it's clear to note that blum's knew exactly what they were doing when they obtained the permit. in 1992, blum received a permit and were aware that they were never allowed patron use in the backyard. blum's has told me and my neighborhoods that they're allowed to use the backyard because they had a permit. well, it turns out that blum's p.u.a. permit expired in may 2020. their new structure was built with the same use of enhanced

use by patron, violating the building code, planning code, and every stipulation granted to them showing prohibition of use. barbara tice's appellant brief is another excellent example in that 12 times she refers to using the back deck for her patrons. barbara tice's appellant brief that they accidentally did not check patron use was clearly a falsehood. blum's has been told for decades by the planning department that they cannot have patrons on the back deck. miss tice said she checked the box, not for patron use, by

mistake. please see the letter attached. they even posted on facebook about patrons using the deck. see my exhibits from blum's facebook page showing patron use before the deck was built and after. the reason for the deck was to shade patrons from the elements. the application for the wooden permit was intentionally misleading to city departments. blum's clearly new the deck would be used for patrons, and they also new their deck was already constructed when they applied for the permit before the board. i want to bring up violations of planning codes 134 and code 145. the residential second floor needs free access to the backyard. blum's illegally removed the staircase and illegally

installed a fire ladder because the deck was only for patron use. i live within a 300 foot boundary of blum's. if blum's requested a permit for patron use, i would have been notified. clearly, blum's knew that patrons were not allowed and went ahead any way. there's no way that blum's could not know that the backyard was off limits to patrons. i ask that the board revoke the portion of the june 2021 permit that allows construction and all new backyard construction be immediately removed. thank you so much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from mr. bill johnston. mr. johnston, you have seven

minutes. okay. i believe i saw -- >> there we are. thank you. >> clerk: you're welcome. >> my name is bill johnston. i live at 621 missouri street, and i've been a resident at this address since 1988. i filed my appeal against the structure on the back of blum's for two reasons. number one, the structure itself, and number two, the intended use. the primary focus of my argument will be centered on the structure, as i believe it is within the authority of the building department to determine its legitimacy. my request is that the board of appeals revoke the building permit and require the structure to be removed from the property. second, i will state my belief of the use of the back of the property. alec, could i have image one,

please? the application filed by blum on 6-11 states, construct a wood platform over an existing concrete patio, and install automatic door opener and activation switches. i have no problem with automatic door opener and activation switches. construct a wood platform over an existing concrete platform. this is clearly more than a wood platform. i'm not a specialist, but i question if the building department would allow a structure this design. specifically, i want to point out the overall size. the structure covers the entire open footprint of the backyard. there's no set back on either side or the back. are the sidewalls acceptable?

do they need to be built of a material that's fire rated. by using a semi permanent roof tarp, all of a sudden, they've created a room. does this trigger questions from the fire department about safety. there's an upper room that's been an apartment in the past. is this acceptable? there's no permit on record to remove or change the fire escape to accommodate this condition. there's electricity for lighting. is an electrical permit needed? again, this is not a wood platform. this is an attempt by blum to increase their square footage. the platform that is subject to the appeal is not an expansion. it covers the same footprint of

the patio that's existed for decades. size, scale, addition of higher walls, very different than wood platform over a concrete plan. the drawings submitted with the permit application and specifically on drawing a-1, section 15 and section 9, show a minimal height increase. unfortunately, this wasn't a dimension part of the drawing, and from the photo construction, it appears this height was increased. blum's made a significant investment in the structure.

in blum's brief to the board, they state, when we did the installation, we should have applied for a permit, but there was so much going on, and a whole lot of moving parts going on trying to get the business viable. it took us until june to get plans for submission. this is unacceptable. you run a business that is accessible on several levels. construction is a sensitive topic in neighborhoods, and enlarging building size is a very sensitive topic. san francisco has a process for notifying and getting input from neighbors when a building is being enlarged, raised, changed. the process has a fire code to protect safety. that did not happen. the reality is this is an attempt by blum's to legalize something already built.

again, i ask the board to revoke this permit for the deck platform and require them to deconstruction the platform and remove it. over the past eight weeks, i've learned more about types of uses. it's my understanding that use and associated permits is one of the responsibilities of the planning department. i support the planning department's suspension request dated june 24 of the building permit. the planning department's suspension addresses the construction permit, the deck, including the roof, both which i've already addressed, and number three, the rear deck being used by customers of the commercial tenant doing business as blum's bar. the document further states that construction of this extent would require public notice, again, already addressed, and may require

conditional use authorization from the planning commission. in the blum brief, they state years of authorized use. they additionally state desire to have temporary use authorization that we have had in the past, allowing us to open the patio area 12 times a year. i don't believe that blum's fully understands the temporary use permits they have had in the past. they are correct that it is a 12 month per year allowance, but it is states specifically not for use by patrons. it is for fundraisers and special events. it does not allow and is not intended for the patio to be opened up once a month for patron use. this type of use is specifically relevant for use in a neighborhood interface. patron use would require a totally different permit, and as there is no permit in place,

outdoor use should not be allowed. thank you. that's my statement. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from michael magnuson. you have seven minutes. >> thank you very much, and thank you for having us. i'm going to try to share my screen here, if possible. can you see my screen? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. excellent. so i am a resident of 263 missouri street. i've lived in that property for 12 years, maybe a little bit more, and i've got a diagram of our property relative to blum's backyard. i should point out, when we bought our home, we specifically made a point of making sure that the patio of blum's was not authorized for patron use, as bill has just pointed out, so this was something that we bought our home that we specifically researched prior to making this

investment. now let me just show you a little bit. this was the patio when we bought our home. this was the patio as of 20 subpoena. i just want to give you some historical context. there's some lattice that was not removed, and some high fencing. the red dot would be, like, someone's face. i bring this up because i believe the deck is fundamentally flawed. this is one of the reasons that we believe that the permit should be removed, but it is fundamentally flawed from the standpoint particularly of noise. so this -- just to go through a timeline, it was december 2020 when we started to notice that the deck was going up. this was pretty alarming, i would say, to us. we had not been consulted about anything like this, but we

understood they were doing what they needed to do to survive an unprecedented difficult moment in time. so really, our first reaction was compassion for a local business that was trying to stay alive in our neighborhood, and we really wanted them to succeed. so okay, we just sort of went along with it, but at the same time, we were assured kind of -- i heard it secondhand, but we were assured this was a temporary thing. we were confident this was something we could live through, but because vaccine was already being distributed, we thought the end was in sight, and we were going to help the business survive.

customers, when they watch the games, they get excited. they cheer when good things happen, they grown when bad things happen. all of this is happening inside of blum's. this is just the noise coming from inside of bloom's, and what i have learned is those sounds coming from bloom's is spoilers. i have learned that i have to close the back windows. >> clerk: i'm sorry. alec, please pause the time. mr. magnuson, we lost

connection. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. resume the time. >> operator: time is resumed. >> clerk: the last thing we heard you say was you didn't want to get the spoiler alert. >> the noise which travels inside of blooms, through our yards into our homes through our back windows and into the front of our homes is so loud that if i don't close the back windows of my home, i can hear those spoilers over the noise of my own television in my living room. i tell that story to illustrate just how much noise comes into our home. when people are on the deck, it

is literally to the point that our children hear bar noise in their bedrooms. it's fundamentally designed with a low railing along the entire property line, which frequently, people are hanging over, their voices, as they converse with one another, carrying into our homes. we're going to hear every word of what they're saying inside of our homes. that's, by the way, to say nothing of the fact that these people just typically -- their eyes naturally wander, their gazes, right into our homes. there's only so long that you can look off into the distance before you wonder, oh, what's going on in that yard? what's going on in that bedroom? we felt like animals in a zoo enclosure just being in our yards or even being in our

homes, and it's been a massive and disgusting invasion of privacy to have someone setting up essentially a viewing area right into our homes. but even more than the viewing, the noise that it generates into our homes. i say all this because i believe the deck was fundamentally flawed. as bill said, it was not meant for temporary use. we cannot have this in our homes, and i just request the permit pulled. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from arthur

yasuda and nancy sato. >> yes. this is arthur yasuda, and my wife and i, nancy sato, our backyard shares an area with bloom's outdoor patio. i've been a resident on that property since 1981. i moved out in 1992, but my experience is with the noise since then, and that's the first topic i would like to i see ra. so similar to the other appellants, the noise was always apparent from bloom's patrons. it was particularly bad in the summer, when they tended to open their windows and rear doors, and i can specifically remember going over to the property, bloom's, talking to tom, talking about the open windows and doors, and yes,

occasionally, he would close them, certainly, after i would talk to him, but the point is, afterwards, you can hear the noise, and similar to what mike said, i remember distinctly during the 80s and the 49ers glory years, you could hear the cheering from the bars. but let's think about the noise in the backyard. the noise is much more elevated, it's more disturbing. we also have that lack of privacy because of that railing that was shown in the previous photos, they can look directly into our yard. my comments about the noise, it was a disturbance to us, and we did feel about that very strongly. when i did talk to tom, he told me it was allowed by a permit, so we did not complain. but i want to make it known that just because we did not complain to the city, it's not

because we were dissatisfied, and we did not certainly approve of that outdoor use. we simply tolerated it because we understood there was a permit, although as later, we find out that maybe that's not necessarily true the way that it was presented to us. currently, i have tenants there, and i believe they submitted something to the b.o.a., and as far as the current status, i'll let them refer to that because i do not reside there currently. the main point of this is the permit, and we're appealing the building permit. so i want to take some time to talk about my two areas of concern, which parallel the other people's, which is the platform itself and secondly the use of the platform. i want to read from my statement here because i refer to building codes, and i want to make sure i get it correct.

this shows bloom's disregard not only for the san francisco building department but also for the neighbors because as was stated, by building it without a permit, you avoid the requirement of public notification and a 311, so i'm very happy that the city responded by suspending the planning code permit and allowed this appeals so you can hear the input from the neighborhoods to that backyard. when i read over the planning department's suspension request, it states, and i'm quoting here, the use of the rear area by customers constitutes an outdoor activity area that would require a building permit and may also require a conditional use authorization from the planning commission, two things that, to the best of my knowledge of has not been requested by bloom's.

i review that code, and it says the use of an outdoor activity, quote, if located outside a building and contiguous to the frontline of the property of the lot, end of quote, which really i interpret as a front patio at the front of the patio, and this is not true for bloom's. bloom's has been using the backyard all this time in violation of the 142 code. furthermore, the use of the backyard by patrons is specifically denied on the permit for approval. on the page that says conditions and stipulation, it says, quote, not for use by patrons, end of quote, and that was signed by the d.b.i. so clearly, to me, this building permit has to be cancelled because of all those violations, and really, a disregard for the planning

codes. so with that, i want to move on quickly to the subject of usage. so the letter to the b.l.a. clearly states bloom's intentions to use the platform for patrons. i think we've clarified that, and i can review it for yourself. so i want to review the outdoor space, and actually, these are more open questions to the planning department, board of appeal does, and d.b.i. my question is if d.b.i. did not allow patrons, i just want to be clear on the codes that prevented this use. if it's not allowed, how can a t.u.i. be approved subsequent that would allow persons on that deck? the second point brought up by the request for suspension is the conditional use permit,

which is -- with respect to 145.2, which is not issued. so this should prevent back use of the patio. i bring this up because i have a specific question. even if the deck is removed, shouldn't this 145.2 prevent use of the backyard because of this outdoor use permit. so based on that, i propose that the planning commission to prohibit the outdoor patio by patrons. lastly, let me just summarize overall that nancy and i request the front door, deny the backyard, and require bloom to remove the outdoor deck and roof beams as they were not

permitted. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: yes, i was just going to request that the zoning administrator sanchez take note of all those questions, and would you please, in your time, respond to those questions because they were -- i don't want to go about wasting time about them. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, miss barbie tice. miss tice, you have 28 minutes. welcome. >> hello. thank you for your time. thank you for your time, and, yes, during covid, the bar was doing outside for, i believe it

was prop h, to try to maintain the business during covid time. the neighbors that i talked to, i told everyone that after this was done, and we were allowed to open inside again, and we abided by that, we were going to go back to the 12 times a year. the building of the platform

was for the patrons. we did make a mistake with the fence by putting a cap on it, and we need to change that so that it isn't something that people could lean on. during covid, it was difficult. we were trying to keep people employed, we were trying to keep open. just because you're shutdown doesn't mean you don't pay taxes, utilities, spoilage, and all the people that i spoke to, i realize you made a [inaudible], and i thank you for it. i know if i lived around there, i would not want a bar in my

backyard. we just want to get to be a neighborhood bar. i apologize for the lack of communication. everyone that has come to me, i have talked to openly. no, we did not pull permits. d.b.i. was closed during that time. we had no intention of pulling a permit. we did what we could, so [inaudible] and i want to move forward with it. i want to move forward with garage door openers, using the backyard only 12 times a year, and working together as a community. that's it. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we do have a question from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: so there seems to be a discrepancy between your view of -- that

you have a permit for 12 times a year special events and that of the -- the appellants. is your permit that you present to us evidence of a permit that is currently in existence [inaudible] of the stakes that you -- that that still exists? >> the permit expired in may 2020, and when i went to renew it, i was told that they were allowing businesses to use outdoor parking lot, and that's why i used it during covid, and that's why i have not used it -- >> commissioner swig: okay.

so the use of that outdoor deck is illegal during this point, and the use of it in general by your appellants was illegal. >> no, because it was covered under the prop h. because we were closed inside, they were allowing businesses to use outdoor patios and parking lots. >> commissioner swig: yeah. i'll ask mr. russi to opine on that after i ask my second question. so the other thing, you just stated you want to go back to the way it was before, and that means to me that you would be willing to remove the structure that exists today since it was not built with a permit, since it was built in a moment of need, and you had good support from the community that gave you lumber and labor, but now,

that's no longer a need, in your own words, so you would like to take the structure down? >> i would like to keep the wood deck because it is safer. it's not a wood deck. it's a pool cover that goes over the concrete. i have no problem with taking the upper structure down. they impede the view from the inside of the bar. >> commissioner swig: it's not in our purview, but i heard testimony that you are providing service to people on that deck, alcohol service. is that true? >> not currently. we haven't been since we were able to open inside. since june 15, we have not used the deck at all. >> commissioner swig: so my concern, having a several decades long history in the restaurant and alcohol service,

having a liquor license myself, i am aware that every time i have to apply for a liquor license, i have to apply for a map as to where liquor is going to be served. did you get any clearance to adjust your map, which i believe would be neighborhood notification [inaudible]? >> from the a.b.c., since i bought the bar, that area is covered, and we applied for the area out front during covid, as well because we have a parklet out front. >> commissioner swig: okay. i'll ask mr. sanchez whether when an application was made,

whether [inaudible] -- >> president honda: sorry to bother you, vice president swig. we can barely hear you. >> commissioner swig: okay. i moved back, and i should have sat up. i'm going to ask mr. sanchez to evaluate a permit when there's potential alcohol being served [inaudible] if the establishment is licensed in fact to serve alcohol on this extended area if that extended area [inaudible] >> we have had a permit after june 16 for beer that we applied for. >> commissioner swig: yeah, that's different than alcohol. we'll get into it. thanks very much. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay.

thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> president honda: you've got 28 minutes, if you want to use them. >> this is 1318 18 street. the appeal before you is the appeal of a permit to construct a wood platform over an existing concrete patio and installing an automatic door opener and activation switches. just to highlight, some of them currently under the planning code, a conditional use authorization is required for an outdoor activity area. there is no such authorization for an outdoor activity on the subject property. there have been a series of temporary use authorizations over the years. most recently, that authorize expired in 2020.

i think it was may 2020. that did allow for one-time-per-month use not in a manner generally necessarily for patrons, but the general use authorizations are an additional layer of allowance of requirements under the planning code to give a little bit more flexibility of uses, and we have, under the temporary use authorization, you have your christmas tree permits, you have pumpkin patches, you have things for markets, fairs, and festivals, and looking at what they have received their t.u.a. for, they sought celebrations or exhibitions sponsored by residential or commercial occupant which allowed them one single 24-hour-per-month event for one year. the other kind of issues that

were raised, i think the permit is misleading. i believe it describes the construction of the platform, which is very -- it seems to be relatively close to the grade there, but, you know, a lot more springs forth from it, including the closed area, which definitely would require section 311 notification under the planning code, so that was not really approved under this permit or not properly approved under this permit, if that's the argument of the permit holder. there's approve that allows regular use by permit. there's no temporary existing authorization. there's been many codes added to the planning code that helps small business over the years. prop h was precovid times, that does allow a little more

flexibility when it comes to outdoor activity areas, but nothing for bars, so there's nothing in h that would allow a bar to have an outdoor activity area at the rear of their property. something else that was developed during covid through a series of orders from the mayor's office was developing an area that could be used for seating and expanding purposes. it was allowed in rear yards, but there's no shares spaces permit required for this. the shared spaces program also has limited i believe to the hours of operation, and that permit program was just made permanent by the board recently. lastly, there's the small business recovery act, which was sponsored by the mayor, just if not recently approved by the board, will be as

imminent. they've had the first approval action on it, and i didn't see anything in there that would allow this kind of as it has been operating. so i think there are several issues here. you know, and i would add, too, i actually did not receive the permit holder's brief. it was not sent to the planning department. it was mentioned as part of the appellant's conversation and i did review that and saw the plans that were attached to that, but the other thing, there was very clearly a violation here. we have created an enforcement case. my understanding, it's just being assigned to staff for viewing this week, but also hear that there's kind of maybe a new direction that the permit holder is looking to go in, considering removing the overhead structure, maybe just keeping the deck, and one of the questions from the appellants is, you know, what

use is allowed there if not regular use by patrons because that's not currently authorized? there's other uses that can be authorized under the temporary use authorization, and historically some of the things that were listed on previous temporary use authorizations spoke to fundraisers for benefits, for star king kids school, and july 4, an anniversary parties, fundraisers, and special events. those are the kinds of things that have been authorized in the temporary use authorization, not for the general use of patrons. also, the use with any tenants

and getting rid of the fire escape, i don't know the interior layout or access that that upper unit might have. what is allowed under the code is it could be a break area for employees. that's not considered outdoor activity area. the outdoor activity area is when patrons are using this space, so it could be employees, could be used by residential tenants on the property, but no regular use by patrons is authorized. with that, i'm happy to answer questions. there was a question of where do we go from here? it seems like there is a lack of trust and communication between the parties, and what may be an acceptable resolution to this, certainly, there's been quite negative impacts on the neighbors that need to be addressed in some way, shape, or form, and it doesn't seem

that that's been adequately addressed to date. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig, president honda, and commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner swig: i have a series of questions. so there has never been -- there's never been a permit for legal use of this space with the exception of the conditional use for one one time a month for that laundry list of stuff that you alluded to, correct? >> it's a temporary use. there was a temporary use authorization for the one time a month, and that goes back, so it's, like, 2014 or so. maybe a little bit sooner than that, but yeah, no regular use by patrons has been authorized. >> commissioner swig: did you ever see any records of the

original construction [inaudible] in the original testimony from the appellant? >> no, i did not see that, but i did not specifically research for that. i think given the history of our approvals on this, in every case, it's been clear that no regular patron use of that, and that's why they sought temporary use authorizations, so i think it's very clear from that history that there's no outdoor activity area used on the property. >> commissioner swig: and given that, i raise the question to mr. russi, prop h does not cover this in any way, shape,

or form. >> i took a quick look through the latest version and didn't see a method of approving it through that, either. >> commissioner swig: okay. and in consideration, and i am sensitive to [inaudible] really unfortunate. i want to come out as not compassionate, but the construction of anything, if this were another type of commercial activity, and somebody decided that they were going to demolish an existing [inaudible] and rebuild what was built, is there any exception to that behavior with regard to legality or

[inaudible]? >> that is generally a question first for building department because it's my understanding that if you have a fence that's less than 6 feet tall, that doesn't require a permit. so if someone constructs a fence that's less than 6 feet tall, that would be authorized. i think there's other potentially serious building code issues that we saw, which deputy duffy might want to address. >> commissioner swig: [inaudible] and a brand-new fence, would that in any way, shape, or form, be considered legal or was the planning -- or does planning or d.b.i. look the other way in that situation? >> my understanding is there is

no permit to authorize that. the permit that's before you purportedly authorizes some construction before you, but i don't think it authorizes what's before you today. >> commissioner swig: finally, the issue with regards to liquor licensing, when you are looking at [inaudible], do you look at other licensing in the place when authorizing a permit which would seem to expand the use of a restaurant, including the services of alcoholic beverages, the nature is in fact that a liquor license is in place [inaudible] that it would include that outdoor

space? >> there was a liquor license referral. generally, the information we get from them are limited. you know, we don't authorize generally where the alcohol can be served or not served. the conditions may singh to impose that as part of conditions of approval, but generally, we're approving the use, and if we don't have any additional restrictions, we won't include those. i'll take a look at the referrals that were sent to us and see if they highlighted where the alcohol service would be. i can't see that our department would have authorized alcohol service in the rear yard when we had no authorization for a use in that area, so that -- that would be kind of news to me that we would have authorized that. i wouldn't be surprised if a.b.c. has their own, you know, kind of processes that happen after our referral that maybe more finely tune where thol --

alcohol service is allowed. >> commissioner swig: my final question. if approximate the process would have been done properly, would that have triggered a 311 notice for the neighbors or appellants to be noticed properly and would be allowed to give feedback on it? >> yes. seeing the photos of what is there or has been there, that would require a neighborhood notification. >> commissioner swig: thank you for answering all of my questions. >> thank you. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus, why don't

you go ahead? i'll follow after you. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. sorry. i'm on mute. mr. sanchez, how is it that this permit was issued, and then three days later, the suspension happened? >> so after the permit was issued, then it was brought to our attention what is actually there because the information on the permit didn't match in real life, so we suspended that and moved forward from there, and that suspension was not appealed to this board, as it could have been within 15 days. >> commissioner lazarus: so you went on the permit, determined that what was there was acceptable, and then determined

more information was forthcoming. >> correct. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. and then my other question is, if we determine that we're going to uphold the appeal, what is going to be the practical effect if we make that decision? >> well, partly, it depends on the permit holder. if they abide by the board's decision, if the board says the deck is not properly approved and must be removed, with all that structure, then they would be in violation of the board's decision if they didn't do so, and we would pursue enforcement along those lines. >> commissioner lazarus: so it's kind of within our purview to determine how far we want to carry through if we want to uphold the appeal? >> i believe so because they're seeking to essentially legalize that structure, and i don't believe they've properly shown that structure on the plans, but that structure is before the board on this permit, and i

would defer to the city attorney as to whether my understanding is correct, but i think you probably have the ability to remove these features. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> president honda: okay. my questions are pretty similar. would it be you or the building department, what is the difference between a platform and a deck? generally, when it comes before us, when they're trying to get a deck, they state a platform. what is the difference between the two? >> i don't think we have one. i'd defer to d.b.i. if they have a distinguishing definition in their codes, whether it's raised or flat against the surface, you could call it a deck either way. >> president honda: okay. i'll ask joe that question. second question is if we allow the platform or deck, is the

railing still allowed or does that -- >> if the deck -- if it doesn't require a fire alarm, if it's less than 10 feet in height, it wouldn't require notice. what requires notice is the additional structure they've built with the tenting around it, with the expansion of envelope. >> president honda: i'm just trying to figure out, when this bond moves forward, i think the permit that's before us, we don't have the ability to approve just because it has not gone through the particular process. and then, last question, what would enforcement look like at this point? >> we would go through our standard enforcement process identifying the violation, if they have a structure that doesn't meet code requirements, that it wasn't properly approved, generally, i'd redirect them to go through the process to either remove or to legalize, and if they don't do

either, if they don't pursue abatement of the violation, then we would proceed with penalties up to $250 a day with every day that the violation continues. >> president honda: and how long of a grace period before that actually happens? >> typically, our first notice we send out would be a courtesy notice, and then it could be 15 days later, we begin our enforcement notice, which provides 15 days to respond, and then another notice of violation, which allows 15 days to respond, and then, they can request a hearing before the board of appeals or zoning administrator. the process, it's not very quick, because there is the process of having these hearings before penalties, but that is the outline. it could be a month, two months before -- >> president honda: no, i just

wanted an idea so that people attending this hearing could also understand what was going forward. commissioner chan -- >> commissioner chan: i think my questions were answered. thank you. >> president honda: we have a question from our new commissioner. commissioner lopez? >> clerk: you're on mute, commissioner lopez. we can't hear you. >> commissioner lopez: rookie mistake. mr. sanchez, i just wanted to clarify, if -- regardless of where -- where the subject permit lands, frankly, regardless of where the structure lands, the conditional use of the space is -- is a separate permit regime, is a separate question, correct? >> yes, and so that would relate to the use, so the actual use of that for patrons

could only be remedied through the conditional use process. >> commissioner lopez: and if there were to be continued or renewed use outside of the scope of the acceptable conditional use permit, could you sketch out for us what that enforcement regime would look like? >> same process. let's assume this deck was never even built, and we were back to the old patio that was there, if they were using it for their patrons, we would get a complaint, and if they didn't abate it or discontinue the use, we would pursue the notice of violation, and then, we have various appeal processes of those. in this case, when it's a use, it can be relatively easy to

abate. they just close the space document document are are -- space -- but in the event they weren't using this space, they could very easily abate the violation by closing the doors and by pursuing a conditional use or some other process to allow the use that they desire, if that makes sense. >> commissioner lopez: got it, and that makes sense. thank you. >> you're welcome, commissioner. >> president honda: and just so you're aware historically, the board of appeals use to control the c.u. process until 1996. >> clerk: okay. we are now going to hear from the department of building inspection. deputy director duffy was present, and i believe he just

lost connection, so i believe he's going to be calling in now, so let's wait for that call.

okay. deputy director duffy will be joining us shortly, so one moment. thank you for your patience.

>> while we wait, mr. sanchez -- >> clerk: you know what? i'd prefer that we wait until deputy director duffy is here. >> sure. >> clerk: thank you.

okay. deputy director duffy, i see you're in the meeting. >> president honda: welcome, joe. >> clerk: okay. are you on mute? i see that you're unmuted, but i can't hear you. >> no, i'm not on mute, no. >> clerk: okay. we can hear you. welcome. >> okay. hopefully, i stay connected. if not -- >> clerk: yeah, you just cut out for a moment. did you want to try calling in? >> i just got a chance to look at it -- >> clerk: director duffy, i'm sorry, you cut out. i think it would be best if you

called in, or maybe if you cut your camera off when you speak, we can hear you. maybe the wifi will be better. >> okay. >> clerk: you want to try that, because you keep breaking up. [inaudible] . >> clerk: we can't hear you, so you can just use a landline to call in. we can't hear anything. i see that you're here -- okay. i think he's going to try to

call in. >> clerk: okay. i believe he called in, okay. deputy director duffy. i see that you called in. can you hear me? okay. perfect. we can hear you. >> okay. i looked at the building permit. it was approved over the counter by d.b.i. plan check.

but today, when reviewing the exhibits on the package, i did notice, and i can point out a few building code issues that i can see that would need d.b.i. to address. i believe mr. johnson sent this in. any time we build a deck to the property line, we need to have a set back. i do see some building code concerns that may have been missed at d.b.i. by the plan check, so that definitely needs to be addressed. i would need to let our plan check staff know that that may have been missed. d.b.i. did receive a complaint back in june. they were unable to gain access, and they did leave a note, and according to the complaint tracking system, we

still did not get access to review the complaint, which was about the rear deck. i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: we have a question from president honda and commissioner chang. >> president honda: commissioner chang, why don't you go first? >> commissioner chang: sure. mr. duffy, could you specifically what you believe to be the code violations on the photo? >> well, if you look at exhibit 1, the deck appears to go from property line to property line, and as you know from other appeals on deck and stuff like that, they're normally set back to avoid having to build a fire wall, but anything that goes directly to proper line, that means it's at zero lot line, you would need at least 1-r construction, and what that means is there would need to be construction and a 1-r wall

going up on both sides if it go to see property line. the only -- if it goes to property line. the only way to avoid that would be to pull it in, and i believe for a business, it would have to be 5 feet. but from what i'm seeing, there needs to be -- the construction going right to property line needs to be addressed. >> commissioner chang: thank you. >> president honda: so joe, my question is, what is the difference -- i asked planning, but he punted to you. what is the difference between a platform and a deck; and regarding the difference, do they have to -- is there a side yard set back required for a deck but maybe not for a platform? >> well, you know, i don't know if we've got a definition per se of the expansion rate whenever we're stuck with

wording, and we need definitions. but in my experience at d.b.i. of 20 years, we consider a deck and a platform one and the same. the san francisco building code gives you exemptions for building a platform less than 30 inches and above grade, and we would consider that being the deck, as well. that's where we go to on that one. in a commercial occupancy, kind of all bets are off because we're not looking at the same access, we're looking at different. but a platform is a deck, and in my opinion, they're one and the same. >> president honda: okay. thank you. vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: thank you. i would like to see mr. duffy whenever i'm chatting with him, but i'll do my best.

joe, it concerns me that this permit was provided in a simple over-the-counter fashion, and i look at the -- the safety issues, egress, the egress from the second floor, where allegedly there is a tenant, or even if there isn't a tenant, there's somebody up there, and if there was a fire, there would be a problem. the issue that it was built to property lines. as you noted, it shouldn't have -- it shouldn't be this way. we also get into the issues of -- of the use, which we heard testimony from mr. sanchez that the only real

legal use for -- sorry. i want to make sure i don't overstate it. that the legal use of this does not include patron uses but, rather, a place for storage, a place for server breaks, but certainly not patron use. so how did easily -- a structure was already built, and then, they come in and build this permit. how did this permit get so easily issued given the [inaudible] viewpoints of what was really missing that even i

[inaudible]. >> that's a very good question, vice president swig, and all i can tell you that it does appear to have been reviewed by somebody pretty new at -- to d.b.i., and this is my second time seeing something approved by this same person. i'm going to have to go back to their supervisor and have a word with them. i don't see them until they're late. i haven't seen the plans for this one, the drawing, so -- and i don't want to go [inaudible] on a plan checker. the permit applicant should be able to tell us what they have a permit for in regards to the drawings. i have not seen the approved plans. as you know, they are not in our paper division yet. so all i can tell you is i'm looking at the photograph in

exhibit 1 and i have a problem with the proximity to the neighboring buildings. and there were setbacks required on the deck, which there should have been, then that would would bye-bye one thing, but if it was built differently, then that's on the permit applicant. so i hope that answers the question. >> commissioner swig: thank you. and i'm very careful. i don't want to put this on d.b.i. personnel, but i still have to call it to your attention. >> oh, yeah. >> commissioner swig: if you, in looking at this deck as it was built, and it was built clearly without a permit, is it

anywhere near legal given some of the obvious things that are there, and if it's not legal, what would d.b.i. recommend be done with this structure as it stands now? >> well, i'm just going off of a photo that was on an exhibit, so i would need to get a look at the plans. we'd need to visit it again. you are allowed a deck at commercial occupancy, but in the case of this one, i really don't know. i'd need to see the plans and what would not or would be allowed under the planning code. you can make the deck this size, but you need to take care of the fire rates construction, and the thing of that, the

building code does not [inaudible] on zero lot lines, so that's why we talk about fire wall sites and rear sidewalls, the property line, and that fire wall has to go above the walking surface off a deck or a -- whatever that is. i believe it's 42 inches minimum, or the height of the fire well above the surface of the wall. we've seen them before. they're really -- they're a big wall, is what they are. they're a big solid wall, and we're not seeing them. the hope is that the fire department will get [inaudible]

cause too much damage to the neighboring properties. i don't see that at all, but again, i don't see in real life what's on the drawings. >> commissioner swig: [inaudible] would you agree with [inaudible] scott sanchez that given the size, scope, and improvement of this structure as it was built, and even add on the fire wall, does this say 311 notice to get a proper permit? >> when the 311 notice was with the planning department, certainly, i -- it would have bsh bsh you know, it should have -- i keep going back to the photograph. that's all i have to go off. if it appears in front of a

plan checker going full width of the building, there's something else that should have come up. 311, you need to speak to mr. sanchez. >> i don't know if you were on the call or not. you seemed to be having technical problems, so i don't know if you heard or did not hear from mr. sanchez. we saw evidence that there were people consuming alcoholic beverages on that deck at some point, and given the fact that there was knowledge of that situation, that alcoholic beverages was a concern. when a deck or a platform like this is built, does d.b.i. ever take the care and due diligence to reconcile a structure

construction to the alcoholic beverage license map which, when you're serving liquor, required to have? >> well, i did notice notes from the planning department, and i did note that it was not for any -- i just want to look at the notes to see what it set here. so planning wrote [inaudible] there really shouldn't be any people out on that deck if i read what the planning department said. the other thing, the reason sometimes for that, as well, is

that [inaudible] which comes into play in the building deck [inaudible] after the pandemic, but we do need to get minimum codes, so -- >> commissioner swig: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we are now moving onto public comment for this item. president honda, i see that there are 12 people. i'm not sure if they're speaking. >> president honda: let's limit

public comment to two minutes at this point. >> clerk: thank you. if you want to provide public comment, please raise your hand. ahana banergie, we're going to allow you to show your video. ahana banergie? >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> me and my husband are renters here on missouri street. we've been here since 2015, and the piece that i want to emphasize that all the other appellants have mentioned here is the noise coming out of the bloom's tavern. this has been so significant that we have a newborn baby in the house, and it so happens

that the baby's room is towards where the bloom's backyard usage is, and the baby has woken up multiple times at night because of the noise that is coming out of bloom's. the other thing i want to highlight is around privacy, that because the backyard looks back into our bedrooms, backyard, and baby's room, is we have had to essentially keep the curtains shut so that people cannot look into our house. so i just want to support and emphasize -- >> clerk: we just lost you, miss banergie. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> sorry. i don't know at what point that i dropped off, but i want to reiterate that i support the

revocation of the license of using the back patio for bloom's and also the demolition of structure to prevent future unauthorized use. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from l-e-i-g-h, leigh. >> thank you. i am a neighbor to the street, and i've been a neighbor since 2020. during that time that the deck was built, our backyard is one yard away from the property, but what's more interesting, and i think mike touched on it, is our kitchen's on the northside of the property, like, completely on the opposite side of the bar, and the noise bounces off the next-door neighbor and comes

into the kitchen window. it's also heard directly off the back patio and the backyard because there's one yard between us, which makes it quite uncomfortable for us. they said they hadn't used it since june, but that's not true. they stopped using it when the appellants were in the process of objecting, but it went past june 15. yeah, that was it. i guess the safety issue -- i imagine people are lined up on that back patio, and who knows what quality was used to build

this. i can imagine people tumbling off, and who knows who quality was used to build that, and yeah, thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from mitch shaw. you have two minutes. >> okay. thank you. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. you have two minutes. >> i live here with my wife and two kids. we also have tenants down stairs, and so our back deck looks directly over this structure, and our backyard butts up against the side of blooms's. so like others noted, it was on large part based on the assurances and restrictions of use for patrons out there. so i think just to give some context, also, i know i only have a couple of minutes here, but we've been there, we moved

in next to a bar. for 20 years, we raised two kids there from babies. my son's room overlooks the front door, and we overlook, as i said, the back. like any bar, it was very loud, the sports events, the games, bar fights in front over the years. i don't think as much since barbara has owned the place, but needless to say, it's been very loud in front, and we've, as context, never called once. in 20 years, we've never called police, never called them, and it's partly because of the expectation that their space was indoors, and just naturally the space outdoors. but as soon as they built this space and started using it, it was a situation of we couldn't use our back deck anymore, lunchtime, we had to close the

house, and it made us feel like they were kind of locked in. we want to support the business, and the reason why i joined this is as much as i like the good faith that they're not going to use it, i agree, the potential of being there, the property line issues, without fire walls or other safety, yeah, we just don't want that to be a problem moving forward, so thank you for your time and consideration. >> clerk: thank you, mr. shaw. we will now hear from sharon tetlow. miss tetlow, you have two minutes. you're on mute. we can't hear you. >> let me share my screen because i did a couple of pictures that are relevant to actually some of the questions that have come up already so i'm sharon tetlow. i've lived in the house continuously on missouri street. >> clerk: okay. let's pause the time.

>> operator: yeah, i paused your time. >> okay. it's not sharing. >> it should be able to. >> let me try to unmute myself. how about now? can you see it now? >> operator: yes. >> clerk: it's a blank page. i think you -- >> i know. >> clerk: okay. >> i've lived in my house, 271. that's ahana, that's bobbie and bill -- any way, everybody who are appellants. i also, like michael and others, bought my house confirms that bloom's did not use the back deck for patrons. when i brought home my daughter in 2005, i did have to call to ask them to tone it down

because the noise would wake help up. i thought i would share some of these construction pictures because i think some of the questions were pertinent. there's definitely walls that i higher than 6 feet high. i will say when the bar expanded into the back deck during covid, i work from home, and i had to explain to people on zoom calls that i was not at a bar. my daughter, who also wrote a letter, but has a case of the shies right now had to explain to the teachers that, no, that wasn't mommy throwing a party during class. i just want to establish a long history of noise, much like others have explained. i also wanted to note in my letter to this board of appeals, we created a list of permits, and one interesting

thing among others is a, there's a consistent communication from the city about not using this for bar patrons, and secondly, no permit for the demise of the back staircase from the upper residential area and replacing it with a fire escape. here are some other pictures. you can see the high wall, you can see the people's use of this deck -- >> operator: that's time. thank you. >> okay. that's it. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss tetlow. is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. >> operator: did your daughter want to speak in this matter? >> she got really shy, but you do have her letter, so thank you for letting us submit this. i would just really ask that these people not be allowed -- >> clerk: okay. thanks. your time is up. i'm sorry. we will now hear from tommy

gill. mr. gill, you have two minutes. mr. gill? >> yes. i don't know if you can see me, but i hope you can hear me. >> yeah, we can hear you, but your camera is off. >> okay. i don't know how i did that. it just did it spontaneously. >> clerk: i think if you click on the lower left, there should be an icon. >> i've hit the icon. nothing's happening. >> clerk: okay. what about at the top of the computer, maybe that's where the camera is. maybe you've flipped it over to close it. >> operator: you're on now. >> okay. my name is tommy gill. i have been a resident of san francisco since 1984. i have lived in various neighborhoods both as a tenant and as an owner. i know bobbie tice to be a

responsible and professional business owner. san francisco is a densely populated urban area, and i underscore the word urban. 18 street has multiple commercial establishments. when you live in a densely populated urban area, noise is always a possibility. i've lived close to or on more than one bus line. i currently live at 33 and geary, and every morning, i hear buses repeatedly announcing their destination. it's a fact of life, so i don't think the noise has been increased when the deck is used property.

barbie's already committed to shutting it down. i think asking her to remove it without giving her the benefit to bring it up to appropriate standards for the use for which it was intended and authorized should be denied. thank you. >> clerk: okay. is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i do not see any further public comment. let's move onto rebuttal. mr. rabinowitz, you have three minutes. >> hi. okay. so a couple of things here for clarification. there was a permit for the stairs to the backyard that was denied in 1978. it was not in 1982, it was '78. there was another application for the stairs to the rear deck in 1979. i don't have the status of that

one. i also want to point out that the -- this backyard is raised, i think, over 104 inches above grade, so it towers above us when there are people out there. it's not, like, you know, just have like a little fence line and we're all at ground level. no, this pad was built in the 1950s, i think in 1954. the last point i want to raise is there's code from sound emanation from businesses, that they're to be insulated from noise, and that's not the case with bloom's. we hear noise from inside their bar all the time and have for decades. i don't have anything further.

thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. we'll now hear from bill john stan. mr. john stan, you have three minutes. you're on mute, though. we can't hear you. >> i'm sorry. i just have a few comments to make from the testimony that's have happened. i would like to make sure i understand that any type of conditional use application would require a neighborhood notification. all along -- we are at a point now where there was no neighborhood notification of the structure being built or any kind of use, so i would like to make sure that happens. the other point i want to make sure the board of appeals knows is bloom's is a bar.

they're not a bar and restaurant because they don't serve food. i don't know if that makes a difference in your understanding. i question how a t.u.a. is enforced. is it a self-enforced permit or does each event in that 12-month period need to be applied for? and i just -- i guess this would be a question for the building department. i question if drawings were even submitted for the over-the-counter permit because they're -- the application for a wood platform and the drawings that barbara submitted in her statement are clearly not a wood platform. those are my comments. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from michael

magnuson. mr. magnuson, you have three minutes. >> thank you. i do want to say that i am sympathetic to small businesses as evidenced by the fact that we were particularly accommodating of this in the first place. at the same time, i am concerned that leaving any aspect of this deck in place provides a large temptation for bloom's to continue to use the deck in violation of city codes and permits. according to director sanchez' explanations as i understand it, violation of the t.u.a. gets enforced, it starts with neighbors bringing it to their attention. i'm concerned that this basically shifts all of the burden to us. we'd have to go over there each time to somehow ensure that it's not being used by patrons. we then have to count days on the calendar.

this seems counter intuitive to bloom asking for forgiveness. they eventually lied to city personnel when they did apply for the permit by not indicating that the structure had already been built, and he this lied against to the appellant and in response by claiming that it wasn't built indoors. you might have seen a picture at the end of sharon's photo show on june 15, that showed the deck full of patrons. i would request please don't put this burden on the neighbors. i don't think it's a fair situation by allowing this deck to remain in place. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from arthur yasuda and nancy sato.

>> yeah. there's something called a b.b.n. block, a build notice. so if i fill that out, if bill had asked earlier, of any application for a t.u.a. or a conditional use permit by bloom's? i'll take that question or answer that question later. i want to stay on the issue of noise. if you listen to everyone who called in for public comment, it's all about noise. we the neighbors tried to look at the violations so we had a valid basis, but i don't want to glide over the noise because even the noise, there are regulations. what i've got is article 29 from the police code, article 29 for noise guidance. they say for a commercial

property, the threshold is 8 d.b. over ambient. i'll be honest, 8 d.b. is not a lot. even if they might qualify for a t.u.a. or get a conditional use permit, the noise is a big issue and should be considered in any actions taken by the board. finally, i do concur about some of the earlier comments. barbie and i had a short exchange through these letters to the b.o.a. about some litter. this is a minor issue, but my point is that i raised the issue just in my letter, just as another point of dissatisfaction, and the response of barbie was basically denial, not reaching out like she said she would do. her statement reads, there is no continual noise from the patio area, and the patrons do

not throw garbage into the neighbors' yards, and she has no reason to say that without confirming it. i don't feel that i can obviously trust the goodwill of bloom's to comply with any conditional use permit, even if they're granted, or t.u.a.s. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. miss tice, you have 12 minutes. miss tice? she's here. okay, but we can't hear you. if you could take yourself off mute. if you click on the icon in the lower left...

do you have head phones plugged in possibly because it might be a head phone issue. >> commissioner chang: maybe she can try pressing the space bar. >> clerk: do you want to try pressing the space bar? okay. you're still muted. >> commissioner chang: press and hold the space bar. >> great. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. you have 12 minutes. >> really quickly, once again, thank you to the neighbors for tolerating this during covid. it was never -- and i never did lie to them. i've always been transparent and open to communication.

it was and still is my understanding that backyards and parking spaces were allowed for shared spaces. if i'm wrong, okay, but i don't think i am. we used it until the 15, but after that, we didn't use it at all. we shut it down completely because we were able to open indoors. i would like the opportunity to make whatever building we have done in compliance with building code. i don't want to use the deck every day. for so many reasons, it's not only bad scheduling for my employees, it's not good that i

walk by them, i live 1.5 blocks away. i want to be part of the neighborhood. i don't want this to be the hatfields and mccoys. i want this to be a good environment. the plans that were submitted, it does show the deck that was built, and let's build the deck. if there's fire walls, setbacks, we'll gladly do that. not because we're going to use the deck every day, but because we want to be safe, and i want to do that. the whole idea of us not being transparent, nobody reached out. i talked to my neighbor right behind me, bo, who submitted a

letter, and part of the reason we didn't [inaudible] was she was afraid of sun. she wanted sun for her guard. i will gladly sit down to anyone and let's see how we can become neighbors again. there's numerous [inaudible] to support this cause. it's really? let's talk about it. [inaudible] we live in a community, we're going to live here, but we've lived there a long time. can we work together on this? >> clerk: thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so couple items in response to commissioner swig's question about the a.b.c. referral. i did look up the referral that

he received, and really, it is -- it's one page with very little information on it, just that it was seeking a type 48 license. [inaudible]. >> in response to -- i think one of the appellants had a question about the b.b.n. because i was going to mention that. b.b.n. would be the process -- i think if anyone is interested about future permits on the property to sign up for b.b.n. because that would give you notice of permits that would not otherwise require notification such as the t.u.a., the temporary use authorization. there was one that expired on this property last year. if you had the b.b.n., you would have the ability to get notice of temporary use authorization, and one temporary use authorization is needed. it would cover the one-year

period, and it would authorize one per month, and if we received complaints or it was being used more than once per month, we would investigate, and if we found there was a violation, we would seek to revoke the permit. shared spaces does require a shared spaces permit for a private property. i believe the shared spaces lists out for the front of this use, but one is also required for the rear yard if they were to try to seek authorization under that program. the small business recovery act, which is still in process and not finalized, currently under review by the board t would still require a c.u. for permanent outdoor activity area, but in earlier versions, i noticed that it does allow

for a temporarily two-year outdoor activity area, which would be an expansion over the current temporary use authorization which would be limited in how you could use it once per month for 12 months, and this is a much more permissive temporary use authorization. i'm assuming that made it through and is in the current version, but again, that legislation has not yet been formally voted on or signed into law by the mayor, so that's not yet final. i think that's the information that i wanted to share with the board on rebuttal, and i'm available for any questions the board may have. >> clerk: thank you. vice president swig has a

question. >> commissioner swig: so in hearing from appellant magnuson -- i'm going to speak up because i can read julie's mind, and you're not speaking up loud enough. for me, it rang true that this -- given a deck that was built without neighborhood notice, outside of size, without a permit, again, so i would review, mr. sanchez, his questions there. but then, we heard from mr. duffy that this shouldn't have been -- this permit should not have been issued, the setbacks were not there, there's no fire wall safety, etc., etc., etc.

my concerns with the fire safety require upstairs access was not fully addressed, but that's okay. the t.u.a. that seems to exist but seems to have gone past its life cycle, and then, the t.u.a. is not valid. that was -- that use was continued as if it was still there, it seems. and then, there's the whole issue of of alternative leases. you stated -- well, really, the space is for employee breaks, it's for storage, it's for

anything but patron use. so what -- with all of this laundry list of stuff, what do we do now? what -- where -- where do we go, what do we do? is this a suspension of this permit? is this a denial of this permit? what do we do to get this right? i don't care if there's a wood platform back there or not as long as it's used for what you told me was a legal use. i don't care if there's a platform back there made of wood or not as long as it fits into d.b.i.s legal uses, but clearly, we have a platform that is not legal. what do we do now? what is your recommendation?

>> i think it depends on what the board finds is appropriate for the platform. if the structure is removed, we are looking at a structure that was about a foot or so above what was originally there. if we're looking at a platform with a 42-inch railing around it, that could be allowable, but we don't have plans that clearly show that. the board could continue this item and ask that they come back with something that is supportable. the board could say remove everything, go back to what was there previously. i think that could be within the afford's purview with the help of the deputy city attorney, but there are issues with what has been proposed with the extent -- the use aside, just the structure

itself as is problematic, so it needs to be removed entirely or cut down such that it is minimal deck platform with minimal railing above it, and we'd need to have plans that confirm that proposal. >> commissioner swig: if the meantime [inaudible] from d.b.i., but in the meantime, whatever decision we go into with just the size, shape, use of this deck, do we also put provisions there to, according to your guidelines, prevent use of this deck by anybody but employees who break, storage, or other operational related

uses? that is, they do not include the use of this deck by patrons for the use of smoking, drinking, hanging out? >> i believe the board would have the ability and the authority to condition how it was used and to prohibit any temporary use authorizations for outdoor activity area or even perhaps the shared spaces program, or if it was the board's desire to see this as really only a break space for employees, i believe, and that we'd defer to the deputy city attorney, but i think that would be something that you could condition as to have this deck that would be allowed to be used. >> commissioner swig: is it your understanding that a c.u.a. is a nonissue any way because the c.u.a. was never enforced and over a year ago? >> they could seek a new c.u.a. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner lopez.

you're on mute. thank you. >> commissioner lopez: thank you. mr. sanchez, just taking a step back, what's the, you know, procedurally, i think commissioner lazarus noted earlier that we have a notice of suspension before us, so i'd just be curious to understand, you know, if we never had this hearing this evening or, you know, a decision was reached either way this evening, what would be the kind of normal progress, you know, under that suspension request? >> that is a request question. the permit would remain suspended. we would work with them to come up with an alternative that would be code compliant and have them implement that, so there would be a subsequent rescission permit to make changes to what was already

issued to correct it and bring it into code compliance. >> commissioner lopez: and a follow up question, do you have a sense -- i don't think we need specific dates, but can you give us a broad outline of the type of timeline for that process to take place? >> it depends on how they wanted to legalize it. if they wanted to legalize it through a conditional use process, the conditional use process is, best scenario, six months, but it could be six to 12 months process. if they wanted to remove everything, they could come in the next day to remove everything, so the timeline is determined by the choices that people make and their path to compliance. >> commissioner lopez: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: yes, i'm doing a little tag teaming

with commissioner lopez tonight. based on his question and your response, mr. sanchez, that they would need to do everything into code compliance, it sounds like our decision might be more focused on use and even whether this should be there in the first place. >> yeah, and the board has broad authority and the discretionary authority similar to that of the planning commission to, you know, you can take into account the impact of the proposal on the neighborhood and invoke and adopt appropriate conditions of approval to mitigate any impact. so, you know, you have more authority than the department typically would on standard review. we're just looking at code compliance. usually, we'd have a decision

from the board of appeals, and you can take appropriate action, whatever you feel, on this permit. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. deputy duffy, you have 12 minutes. >> thank you. joe duffy, d.b.i. i think you're getting me better than earlier. i apologize for the interruptions. i just wanted to welcome the new commissioner lopez. i look forward to working with you. i don't know if it's your first meeting, but this is my first time speaking to you, so welcome to the board of appeals from the d.b.i. getting back to the appeal, according to the permit tracking system, there were two

sets of plans with this permit application. as i stated earlier, i did not see the drawings, but we would typically get drawings for this type of work, and then, it does say in the system that we'd get those drawings, and i do need to look at the drawings myself to confirm a plan check. other than that, i'm available for any questions. one other thing. commissioner lopez, just as you asked planning, if there was no appeal, we could be dealing with a complaint on the property. and obviously shall as a building inspector, going out to inspect this deck, you would probably catch the code issues, as well, from a d.b.i. point of view, going to the property lines on the issues that i had pointed out.

so it could be that we would be looking at this any way if we didn't have the peal, so i just want -- the appeal, so i just wanted to mention that. other than that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: thank you. i don't see any other questions, so with that, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: i see everyone's hands raised. commissioner lazarus, and then, we'll go to commissioner swig. >> commissioner lazarus: i think we've gone over this, but what are sort of the natural boundaries on the allowed uses of that space short of a c.u.a., and is the c.u.a. only going to be allowed as it has been, or i think it was up until 20 for the once a month or is there the possibility of it being used as an adjunct to the bar? >> so a conditional use

authorization which has never been sought for the property would allow for regular use of the property -- of the backyard by patrons. and there would be planning commission hearings, the planning commission would condition it as they felt appropriate, but it would be regular business use of that rear portion of the property. whether they had obtained in the past different use authorizations -- >> commissioner lazarus: t.u.a.s, right. >> but it's not meant to be one day a month for regular bar use, it's meant to be a special exhibition, activity, you know, kind of -- and that's how they've portray it had in the past. they had fundraisers there for schools, they had kind of special community events, but just to have it open and regular use, it's sunday, and we want people to come back and use this, that's not what it's

intended for. so that temporary use authorization has expired. they could seek a new one. there's so many that we've created to choose from. there's the shared spaces program, which is a simple permitted process, but it does have limited hours, and they would need to apply for that. and then, under punding legislation, there may be the ability to have a temporary use authorization for up to two years or a regular use that wouldn't require the conditional use authorization, but you can use it as you would authorize. there's limits on the hours, and you'd be limited to two years. but that's pending legislation not yet in effect. >> commissioner lazarus: and this may actually be a question

to deputy city attorney. >> president honda: so what's before us, we have two options. option a, to allow this happen, which i don't think we can. option b is to hold this in

front of us and so we can further condition this going further, or option c is to deny it and revoke the permit, and that's really the choices that we have. so vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: thank you. week after week, we talk on the same subject, and that is that we have laws to uphold, we have compliance issues that come as a result of legislation or other rules and regulations of planning and building. and in that spirit, i think moving forward, i would like to invoke that spirit of upholding the law, upholding the requirements for permits, and all the other legal stuff, and

that every business in san francisco is likely held accountable for. in this case, i don't know what the result [inaudible] but i would like this structure, whether it goes back to what it was before or whether it was adjusted to what it is today, i would like it compliant. i would like to compliant according to what mr. duffy says is the rules and regulations to d.b.i., to what planning offered, and that is not for patron use, and that is for employee breaks, storage,

etc.; and as important, or even more importantly, i would like the neighbors to enjoy quiet enjoyment of their neighborhood, which means a noise level and activity level from the bar which is respective, and that might mean closing that back door during business hours to prevent noise coming out. certainly, it would preclude the use of that deck or platform from patron usage, whether it's smoking, drinking, or just hanging out. so that is what i would like to see happen, and with regard to the c.u.a., there is a right to -- t.u.a., there is a right

to apply for a new t.u.a., but the old t.u.a. no longer applies, and it should no longer be a discussion until a new t.u.a. is applied for. i'm with mr. sanchez on the subject of filing for a c.u.a., so that's my point of view. i'll leave it to my fellow commissioners to come up with some ideas of how to get -- make that happen. >> president honda: thanks, rick. commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: i have a question, actually, for the permit holder? so prior to the construction of the deck, there was a patio that appeared to have some railing and then some lattice structures that was above the railing. so what does this deck do to

provide additional safety measures, as you've stated? >> sorry about that. it's just -- the old deck that i inherited when i bought part of the bar five years ago is a concrete slab, and the fence that goes above that in the neighborhood's yard is the same height. it's a concrete slab that's uneven and breaking, so simply an even structure. >> prior to the construction of the deck, did the railings go from property line to property line? >> yeah. we've always had a conditional use permit that we've used for the 12 times a year, and i went to apply for it during covid,

and planning was closed. i couldn't get that use permit again. and it was my understanding -- obviously, i'm a mom, but we were using it during construction. we always shut it down at 8:00, never later than 10:00, and we never used it -- never put speakers back there -- >> commissioner chang: okay. you've answered my question. just going back, it seems like if we reverted back to the status quo, it appears that property line to property line may be out of compliance with building code, so if there's some sort of access required,

so it seems like what would be required is to create some sort of even surface over this splab -- slab that would be pulled back 5 feet from either property line, and i just want to ask other commissioners how we want to condition that use. and that seems like it would provide even more privacy and ameliorate some of the concerns that the neighbors have expressed. and then, we should talk about the condition, as i started to go down the path of allowing or not the temporary use authorizations once per year because it doesn't seem like

there is a technical -- >> president honda: once a month. >> commissioner chang: oh, yes. sorry if i misspoken. it doesn't seem like there's a desire by the owner or neighbors to seek a conditional use authorization for anything beyond that, but i think that's a starting place if we do accept the appeal, approve the appeal, that the deck should be pulled back 5 feet on either side to comply with building code, and the permitted safety barriers would be allowed. and i would -- i would -- safety railings would be allowed. and i would propose that we condition the use of the deck for employee break time use and storage if necessary, but also

not necessarily disallow this -- you know, the current holder to seek a temporary use authorization for not an extension of the bar use, but for special veepts for community purposes as intended by the actual t.u.a. itself. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: so, i mean, in some ways, the cleanest simplest way is to say no patron use whatsoever. i kind of understand where commissioner chang is going with the t.u.a. i guess the question is how this is going to be done if the space is pulled back. it also seems that that continues to put a burden on the neighborhood to monitor that once a month usage. so my inclination is to just

bar any patron use, but i can be persuaded otherwise, and obviously, to bring it into code compliance, obviously. there's no question about that. >> president honda: i am very sympathetic to, as a small business owner myself, but at the same time, i think this permit is flawed in so many ways other than the actual permit itself. and if we deal with the permit itself, then, we're getting into sound levels and usage. my direction would be that we grant the appeal and condition the permit so -- that my fellow commissioners would approve of. the fact is you did something illegal, and you should not be

rewarded for doing something illegal. two, this has been a commercial encroachment on your neighbors. as you said, you had an open door policy, but you just heard from the bulk of the neighbors on your block, and it takes a lot to come up and complain against your neighbors. you said you had no amplified music, yet from the pictures that are on there, you have portable gas heaters that are in somebody's pictures, and you have a t.v., and that's noise unless there's muted or a head phone for that. so i think we should permit the space that it is only for nonpatrons, and that would go into perpetuity. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yes. i support all the ideas that

i've heard from my fellow commissioners. i think i have to ask this of mr. sanchez, do we, in getting this done, everything that my fellow commissioners just stated, getting this done, should we suspend the permit or should we deny the permit? what is going to enforce the change necessary on this property -- >> president honda: well, if we just deny and suspend the permit, then, she starts from fresh. if we grant the appeal and stay the permit, then it stays in front of this body. if you deny the permit, they start from fresh, and at which point, they can go whatever

direction they want from the city standpoint. if we accept the appeal and condition it, then, it stays in front of this body, and anything forward that goes onto this property, as mr. sanchez said, would have to go onto this department. >> commissioner swig: so if we deny this permit, and we don't keep jurisdiction, then we lose the item. if we -- >> president honda: if we grant the appeal and condition the permit going forward, that's the lay of the land.

>> commissioner swig: so your advice is to condition the appeal and -- >> president honda: if we are going to do that, we're going to have to find findings, is that correct? >> clerk: well, what i'm saying is there appears to be some potential serious d.b.i. issues. deputy director duffy hasn't even seen the property. there may be set back issues, load issues, so i mean, yes, you could condition it, but there are other issues that we may not be aware of, and i'm just concerned -- >> president honda: what is your recommendation? that we continue this item until the department does a site visit? >> clerk: well, if you want to continue it and have d.b.i.

inspect, then you could have d.b.i. condition the deck. otherwise, you could overturn the appeals and let the regular enforcement process play out. d.b.i. and planning department would instigate enforcement action. but i don't want if you want to hear from deputy director duffy or -- >> president honda: my fellow commissioners, what do you want to do? do you want to continue it in order to do a site visit? >> commissioner swig: i think it would be advisable. i don't like continuances -- >> president honda: i don't, either, but it makes sense. >> commissioner swig: i think her advice is very good, as it always is. >> clerk: one more thing i'd like to add is there is the

ancillary suspension request that the department has. >> commissioner swig: i think it would be advisable to suspend the permit and that we get more information from d.b.i. and planning and hear back how good or bad the situation is, and in the meantime, the permit would obviously have to be suspended, and i don't know whether, in the meantime, we also put some conditions on as per mr. sanchez' recommendations that it be used for everything -- >> clerk: that would be a

future step. >> president honda: it's already been suspended, and they don't have the temporary use right now, so that's moot. >> clerk: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: commissioner chang had her hand up before me. thank you. >> commissioner chang: thank you. i was just going to suggest that i like that idea, but i think we should provide direction that the permit holder resubmit plans that comply to the best of what has been expressed today by deputy director duffy, and perhaps you can restate generally what -- what -- what you advised. what i heard was pulling it from both sides of the property line so that there could be something that this body can review and bring closure to,

because i think that would also be nice for the appellant to have some closure to the matter and some conditions and clarity for all parties involved. i definitely think that structure should, you know, remove anything that is not compliant with the planning code and would require 311 notification unless the permit holder desires to go down that route, which is, i think, you know, exceeds what i'm prepared to support tonight. and i agree that there shouldn't be any use of that deck until all of this is resolved. >> president honda: excellent. commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: so first of all, the permit is

suspended. i don't think there's anything we're going to do that's going to change that. secondly, why would we not be able to condition the permit on it being brought into full compliance with planning and building code rather than have to wait to find out exactly what that is. is it a problem to just say it needs to be a legal structure per those codes? i'm missing something here, i guess. >> president honda: mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. so i -- you know, from what i'm hearing, i mean, it's a tricky one, as well. even if we ended up, the board of appeals handled this, what

happens with the suspension from planning? if d.b.i. found out that this permit was reviewed and issued in error, we have the right to revoke that permit, as well. i just don't know the extent of the violations or the corrections that would need to be made. i would love to see the plans that goes submitted and what were approved. let me get back to you, but we've been on this 2.5 hours already this evening. >> president honda: we only have one case, you know that? >> i know, but it's definitely -- conditioning it, i don't know what we would end up conditioning. i don't know what we approved and what is really out there, and then, obviously, you've got planning, as well, coming in for their requirements.

>> president honda: thank you. does that answer your question, commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. thank you very much. >> president honda: so i will make a motion to continue this to what days do we have available and what days will the appellants and permit holder to be available? >> clerk: how much time would be needed for the department to go out and inspection as well as revised plans to be submitted. mr. sanchez has his hand raised. >> if the board believes the impact is a smaller deck, you

could impose that separately just from what d.b.i. would do in order to come up with compliance with not having a fire wall, so there's lots of ways of coming into compliance, and i think in some ways what needs to lead is the concerns that the board has about the size of the deck. if the board thinks they're okay with a deck of that size, we could take a look at something code compliant, but if the board thinks the deck is too big or make it smaller, i think that would be important information to have. handule and i think at the same time, the project sponsor should be aware, i think this -- >> president honda: and i think at the same time, the project sponsor should be aware that this board is leaning to no backyard use in perpetuity. if that's the case, i think the

sponsor would want to think about reconfiguring for their employees to have a space to hangout. >> commissioner swig: i would agree. >> president honda: so to the project sponsor, unfortunately, we're the bad guys today, and i apologize, but this board is leaning to not allowing any patron use no matter what into perpetuity, meaning no matter what proposition goes through after, that will not happen. so given that consideration, do you want time to modify your deck and properly make it into compliance? and i know that's a lot of bad news to process at one time, and i am sympathetic, and i do apologize. >> commissioner chang: you're on mute. >> commissioner lazarus: it doesn't look like she is. >> commissioner chang: or we

can't hear her. >> president honda: can't hear her. >> clerk: miss tice, you want to say something? >> yes. i want to try to comply with whatever building codes are pertinent. >> president honda: that's even in the event that we are not allowing any patron use going forward no matter what? you just froze, your picture has just froze.

so we still need -- joe, how long would it take you to visit the property? >> i would have to involve my plan check team, as well, so i would need three weeks or so -- couple three weeks. >> president honda: what does our schedule look like, madam director. >> clerk: well, ideally, august 11, but that's too soon, i think, so -- we could try to put it on the 18. august 18, is that too soon? or we could -- we only have two hearings in september, and they're pretty full. possibly september 22. >> president honda: joe, do you think that august 18 would work

for you? >> yes, august 18 would work, and if the permit applicant can send me a copy of the plans so i can get a look at them at d.b.i., that would be helpful, but yeah, i can make it work before august 18. >> president honda: just as a potential disclosure, i may be missing that meeting because my daughter will be being dropped off in hawaii for college. on that, i see that the permit holder has lost connectivity. >> clerk: maybe we should give her a call? >> president honda: well, at this point, i think we should go forward. we're going to -- let's continue this hearing. >> clerk: well, i mean, this is an important part. i think we should give her a

call. >> commissioner chang: because she would need two to three weeks and turn it around. >> clerk: yes. alec, could you give her a call, please? >> operator: yeah, i'll give her a call. >> commissioner lazarus: this seems like it could be pretty rushed in terms of the visit and then having to do the plans. >> clerk: otherwise, we could put it on september 22. that's two months away. >> commissioner lazarus: i mean, arguably, we've been saying the permit is suspended, any ways. >> clerk: i think what i'm saying is we've spent a significant amount of time tonight, so the next time we hear it. that should be fast. september 22, we have a busy night that night. >> president honda: but the problem is if we're going to get public comment, we can, and that's going to extend the hearing, and there's just going to be the appellant, so just

hearing three minutes from each appellant is going to consume an hour right there. have we got ahold of the permit holder yet. >> commissioner lazarus: we see the chat in there. she's got connectivity -- >> clerk: she's saying september 22 is appropriate. >> president honda: okay. let's continue this matter until september 22. is that okay or are we just loaded on that night? >> clerk: yes, september 22. do you want to provide instructions on what you expect? >> well, that the department were to go out and -- >> clerk: inspect. >> president honda: -- inspect and see what would bring this deck or this platform in compliance, and then, at the same time, understanding that this body is more than likely

going to condition that -- that there's no patrons on there going forward. >> clerk: okay. did you want to have the permit holder submit revised code compliant plans? >> president honda: yes, i think so. everyone's nodding their head. i guess that's a yes. >> clerk: okay. so is that your motion, president honda? [inaudible]. >> commissioner swig: let's not leave the planning department out of this if they have anything else to add to d.b.i.s -- >> president honda: well, i think going forward, there's going to be other issues, but let's -- >> clerk: should we confirm that the appellants are available, as well? >> president honda: so the appellants -- by the way, you guys did an amazing brief. it was actually very easy to read. >> operator: and the project

sponsor did not pick up the phones. >> i can make it on september 22. >> president honda: thank you. >> clerk: mr. magnuson -- >> president honda: september 22 okay for us to start this party all over again? >> september 22 works for me. >> mr. johnston? >> president honda: eric, thank you. i don't want to butcher your last name. >> okay. thank you. 22 will work. >> president honda: perfect. >> clerk: okay. great. so we have a motion from president honda to continue these appeals to september 22 so that the departments can inspect the property and determine what is necessary to bring the project into compliance with the code. and two, so that the permit holder can present revised

plans that are code compliant. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner lopez: the other thing that comes to mind

is, on a related point, the -- i don't know how you pronounce that, lattice. >> president honda: yeah. >> clerk: privacy screens? >> commissioner lopez: yeah, privacy screens, if we're making -- >> president honda: that's a little bit deeper in the weeds right now, and trust me, as a board of appeals commissioner -- >> clerk: so can we clarify, you made your motion, president honda, but commissioner lazarus, is that a recommendation, so you're giving the permit holder notice of the direction that the board is going in? this is just -- we're just continuing the item. >> president honda: correct, but we're just giving them direction. >> clerk: okay. so we have president honda's motion. added to that is the recommendation that that could be set back 5 feet. so on that -- i'm going to ask

everyone to vote again since we added that new recommendation. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. and that motion is unanimous, and the matter is continued. >> operator: and julie, i did contact the owner, and she said she is available. >> president honda: thank you, everyone, and commissioner lopez. you had input on your first hearing. i waited a few hearings. >> clerk: okay. well, thanks, everyone. have a good night. >> president honda: thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: take care, everyone. good night.

>> president honda: thank you.

>> we are right now in outer richmond in the last business area of this city. this area of merchants is in the most western part of san francisco, continue blocks down the street they're going to fall into the pacific ocean. two blocks over you're going to have golden gate park. there is japanese, chinese, hamburgers, italian, you don't have to cook. you can just walk up and down the street and you can get your cheese. i love it. but the a very multicultural place with people from everywhere. it's just a wonderful environment. i love the richmond district. >> and my wife and i own a café we have specialty coffee drinks,

your typical lattes and mochas and cappuccinos, and for lunches, sandwiches and soup and salad. made fresh to order. we have something for everybody >> my shop is in a very cool part of the city but that's one of the reasons why we provide such warm and generous treats, both physically and emotionally (♪♪) >> it's an old-fashioned general store. they have coffee. other than that what we sell is fishing equipment. go out and have a good time. >> one of my customers that has been coming here for years has always said this is my favorite store. when i get married i'm coming in your store. and then he in his wedding outfit and she in a beautiful dress came in here in between getting married at lands end and

to the reception, unbelievable. (♪♪) >> the new public health order that we're announcing will require san franciscans to remain at home with exceptions only for essential outings. >> when the pandemic first hit we kind of saw the writing on the walls that potentially the city is going to shut all businesses down. >> it was scary because it was such an unknown of how things were going to pan out. i honestly thought that this might be the end of our business. we're just a small business and we still need daily customers.

>> i think that everybody was on edge. nobody was untouched. it was very silent. >> as a business owner, you know, things don't just stop, right? you've still got your rent, and all of the overhead, it's still there. >> there's this underlying constant sense of dread and anxiety. it doesn't prevent you from going to work and doing your job, it doesn't stop you from doing your normal routine. what it does is just make you feel extra exhausted. >> so we began to reopen one year later, and we will emerge stronger, we will emerge better as a city, because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another.

>> this place has definitely been an anchor for us, it's home for us, and, again, we are part of this community and the community is part of us. >> one of the things that we strived for is making everyone in the community feel welcome and we have a sign that says "you're welcome." no matter who you are, no matter what your political views are, you're welcome here. and it's sort of the classic san francisco thing is that you work with folks. >> it is your duty to help everybody in san francisco. >> we worked very hard with the

san francisco venue coalition, the independent venue alliance to advocate for venues. put this issue on the radar of the supervisors and obviously mayor breed. the entertainment commission and the office of small business and we went to meetings and showed up and did public comment and it was a concerted effort between 50 venues in the city and they are kind of traditional like live performance venues and we all made a concerted effort to get out there and sound the alarm and to her credit, maybe breed really stepped up, worked with matt haney, who is a supervisor haney was a huge champion for us and they got this done and they got $3 million into the sf venue recovery fund.

>> we have represented about 40 independent venues in san francisco. basically, all the venues closed on march 13th, 2020. we were the first to close and we will be the last to reopen and we've had all the of the overhead costs are rent, mortgage, payroll, utilities and insurance with zero revenue. so many of these venues have been burning $1,000 a day just to stay closed. >> we have a huge music history here in san francisco and the part of our cultural fab lick but it's also an economic driver. we produce $7 billion annual' here in san francisco and it's formidable. >> we've been very fortunate

here. we've had the department of emergency management and ems division and using part of our building since last april and aside from being proud to i can't tell you how important to have some cost recovery coming in and income to keep the doors open. >> typically we'll have, three to 400 people working behind the teens to support the show and that is everything from the teamsters and security staff and usualers, ticket takers, the folks that do our medical and the bar tenders and the people in the kitchen preparing food for backstage and concession and the people that sell key shirts and it's a pretty staggering amount of people that are out of work as a result of this one

verne you going tarkanian. it doesn't work to open at reduced capacity. when we get past june 15th, out of the into the blue print for our economy we can open it it 100% and look at the festival in full capacity in october and we're just so grateful for the leadership of the mavor and dr. coal fax to make us the safest ♪ america and this is been hard for everybody in san francisco and the world but our leadership has kept us safe and i trust them that they will let us know when it's safe to do that. >> a lot of people know about america is military stuff,

bullying stuff, corporate stuff. when people like me and my friends go to these foreign country and play music, we're giving them an american cultural experience. it's important. the same way they can bring that here. it sounds comfy buyia, you know, we're a punk band and we're nasty and we were never much for peace and love and everything but that's the fertilizer that grows the big stuff that some day goes to bill graham's place and takes everybody's money but you have to start with us and so my hope is that allel groups and people make music and get together because without out, hanging together we'll hang separately, you know. >> other venues like this, all over the place, not just in the san francisco bay area need to exist in order for communities to thrive and i'm not just talking about the arts communities, even if you are here to see a chuckle bucket

comedy show and you are still experiencing humanity and in specific ways being able to gather with people and experience something together. and especially coming out of the pandemic, the loss of that in-person human connection recovering that in good ways is going to be vital for our entire society. >> it's a family club. most our staff has been working with us for 10 years so we feel like a family. >> what people think of when they think of bottom of the hill and i get a lot of this is first of all, the first place i met my husband or where we had our first date and i love that and we love doing weddings and i expect there to be a wedding season post 2021 of all the make

up we haddings and i hope that many people do that because we have had so many rock ep role weddings. >> i told my girlfriend, make sure you stand at the front of the stage and i can give you a kiss at midnight. at this got down on one knee at the stroke of midnight. it wasn't a public thing, i got down on one knee and said will you marry me and is he she had are you [beep] kidding me and i said no, i'm dead serious and she said yes. we were any time homicideel of the show. we just paused for new year's eve and that was where i proposed to my wife. this is more than just a professional relationship it's more than just a relationship from a love of arts, it's where my family started. we'll always have a special place in my heart.

>> venues, you know, represent so much. they are cultural beckons of a city. neighbors can learn and celebrate and mourn and dance together. venues and arts and culture are characterized as second responders to crisis and they provide a mental health outlet and a community center for people to come together at and it's the shared history of our city and these spaces is where we all come together and can celebrate. >> art often music opens up people to understanding the fellow man and i mean, taz always necessary and if anything, it's going to be even more necessary as we come out of this to reach out and connect with people. >> we can sustain with food, water and shelter is accurate and does anybody have a good time over the last year?

no. >> san francisco is a great down. i've been here many years and i love it here and it's a beautiful, beautiful, place to be music and art is key to that. drama, acting, movies, everything, everything that makes life worth living and that's what we've got to mow proteasome no san francisco and that's what is important now. [♪♪♪]

thank you for joining us today. to sign this budget. now that everyone has gotten what they wanted they've all went on vacation except the real, true, dedicated people here in san francisco. so, thank you to the members of the board of supervisors, joining us today. thank you to the members of our budget team,ni