we eventually settled on this idea that there would be an independent venue recovery fund. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this resolution is passed unanimously. >> and we were concerned for these small mom-and-pop businesses that contribute so much to our arts community. >> we are an extremely small venue that has the capacity to do extremely small shows. most of our staff has been working for us for over ten years. there's very little turnover in the staff, so it felt like family. sharky with the small business commission was crucial in pestering supervisor haney and

others to really keep our industry top of mind. we closed down on march 13 of 2020 when we heard that there was an order to do so by the mayor, and we had to call that show in the middle of the night. they were in the middle of their sound check, and i had to call the venue and say, we need to cancel the show tonight. >> the fund is for our live music and entertainment venues, and in its first round, it will offer grants of at least $10,000 to qualifying venues. these are venues that offer a signature amount of live entertainment programming before the pandemic and are committed to reopening and offering live entertainment spaces after the pandemic.

>> it's going to, you know, just stave off the bleeding for a moment. it's the city contributing to helping make sure these venues are around, to continue to be part of the economic recovery for our city. >> when you think about the venues for events in the city, we're talking about all of them. some have been able to come back adaptively over the last year and have been able to be shape shifters in this pandemic, and that's exciting to see, but i'm really looking forward to the day when events and venues can reopen and help drive the recovery here in san francisco. >> they have done a study that says for every dollar of ticket sales done in this city, $12 goes to neighboring businesses. from all of our vendors to the restaurants that are next to

our ven sues and just so many other things that you can think of, all of which have been so negatively affected by covid. for this industry to fail is unthinkable on so many levels. it's unheard of, like, san francisco without its music scene would be a terribly dismal place. >> i don't know that this needs to be arrest -- that there needs to be art welfare for artists. we just need to live and pay for our food, and things will take care of themselves. i think that that's not the given situation. what san francisco could do that they don't seem to do very much is really do something to support these clubs and venues that have all of these different artists performing in them. actually, i think precovid, it was, you know, don't have a

warehouse party and don't do a gig. don't go outside, and don't do this. there was a lot of don't, don't, don't, and after the pandemic, they realized we're a big industry, and we bring a lot of money into this city, so they need to encourage and hope these venues. and then, you know, as far as people like me, it would be nice if you didn't only get encouraged for only singing opera or playing violin. [♪♪♪] >> entertainment is a huge part of what is going to make this city bounce back, and we're going to need to have live music coming back, and comedy, and drag shows and everything under the sun that is fun and creative in order to get smiles back on our faces and in order to get the city moving again. [♪♪♪]

>> venues serve a really vital function in society. there aren't many places where people from any walk of life, race, religion, sexuality can come together in the same room and experience joy, right? experience love, experience anything that what makes us human, community, our connective tissues between different souls. if we were to lose this, lose this situation, you're going to lose this very vital piece of society, and just coming out of the pandemic, you know, it's going to help us recover socially? well, yeah, because we need to be in the same room with a bunch of people, and then help people across the country recover financially. >> san francisco art recovery fund, amazing. it opened yesterday on april 21.

applications are open through may 5. we're encouraging everyone in the coalition to apply. there's very clear information on what's eligible, but that's basically been what our coalition has been advocating for from the beginning. you know, everyone's been supportive, and they've all been hugely integral to this program getting off the ground. you know, we found our champion with supervisor matt haney from district six who introduced this legislation and pushed this into law. mayor breed dedicated $1.5 million this fund, and then supervisor haney matched that, so there's $3 million in this fund. this is a huge moment for our coalition. it's what we've been fighting for all along. >> one of the challenges of our business is staying on top of all the opportunities as they

come back. at the office of oewd, office of economic and workforce development, if you need to speak to somebody, you can find people who can help you navigate any of the available programs and resources. >> a lot of blind optimism has kept us afloat, you know, and there's been a lot of reason for despair, but this is what keeps me in the business, and this is what keeps me fighting, you know, and continuing to advocate, is that we need this and this is part of our life's blood as much as oxygen and food is. don't lose heart. look at there for all the various grants that are available to you. some of them might be very slow to unrao, and it might seem like too -- unroll, and it might seem like it's too late, but people are going to fight to keep their beloved venues

open, and as a band, you're going to be okay. [♪♪♪] 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.

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the

people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today

san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for

them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san

francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us

>> we hope we can learn more about the current state of covid-19 variant cases and others. let's get through the housekeeping and get started. recording. today's event is being recorded and being live streamed on facebook on facebook, sfgovtv, comcast 26, and cable 26. we respect all in this meeting, and want to create a safe space

for all. all video will be disabled. video will be on for speaker only. the asl interpreter will be on for the duration of this event. to view the asl interpreter during the slide presentation, please click on view button at the upper right hand portion of your screen and click on slide view. you can also switch from one slide to the other. once the slide comes on, switch to speaker view media. we are prioritizing questions from members of the public during q&a. media are welcome to follow up with additional questions they

have -- thank you very much for joining us. now i would like to hand it over to d.p.h. director of public affairs katy tang. >> thank you very muc and thank you for attending this webinar. as covid-19 is circulating out there, we know there's questions from many of you. so with that said, i'm going to invite dr. colfax to begin his presentation for all of you, but we will reserve a bulk of the time for q&a. so with that, dr. colfax. >> i thank you, katy, and good afternoon, everybody. it's really good to be here and prioritize where we are with regard to covid-19 in our city.

thank you, everybody, for joining. looking forward to questions and some discussion. we have some slides that i'll be presenting to let you know where things stand, and i know that this pandemic is creating greater challenges within our community. next slide, please. so as of today, we have over 41,000 cases of covid-19 diagnosed in our city, and we have 565 deaths. we are now in a fourth surge, and you can see that we now have an average of about 235 cases a day, and unfortunately, we are seeing another surge in hospitalizations as of august 1 with 97 people in the hospital. san francisco has done a great

job of vaccinating people, and again, thank you for your collective efforts in supporting vaccination. it is our ticket out of the pandemic. 70% of everyone in san francisco has been vaccinated, and that includes, in that calculation, people who are under 12 who, as you know, are not eligible for vaccine yet. total number of vaccines yet, you can see 667,000. 84% of people 12 and older, people who have received at least one dose, and 78% of people 12 and over have completed their vaccine period. so this is remarkable. this is one of the highest, if not the highest jurisdiction of any urban jurisdiction in the united states, and because of this work, and because of what people have done in terms of

getting vaccinated, while this fourth surge will present challenges, we are in a much better place, and we will have many fewer deaths as a result of this vaccine coverage. next slide. so on the next slide is the seven-day rolling average of cases, which is 235. in our winter surge, we peaked at 378. you can see the curve is step and almost vertical. this is because the delta variant is raging through our city, especially among those who remain unvaccinated. we are seeing increases across the world. you see here from the new york

times the increase in cases across the globe, and as i already mentioned, going back to the local situation, we have nearly 100 people in the hospital and are tracking those hospitalizations very closely. next slide. in terms of our case rate, so this is our case rates. this rapid increase, really attributable to the delta virus -- delta variant, excuse me, and the fact that we have reopened much of the city, so therefore, there's more activity. so the combination of these factors are what's driving this increase.

next slide. so if there's any change in the current rate of vaccine uptake, and there's no change in san francisco's current contact rate, which is how much we're interacting with the public and each other, then we project the following, and these are just projections. the current surge would end with 257 additional covid deaths in san francisco. and with that last bullet, just to emphasize, the vast majority would be among people who are not fully vaccinated, and with vaccines, 90 to 95% of these

deaths are preventible. next slide. as we've seen throughout the pandemic, covid-19 is having a disproportionate impact on different neighborhoods in the city. in this case, higher rates in the southeastern part of the city. the more the blue shade on this map, the higher the concentration in the city. so you see mission, tenderloin in particular have high rates. so this is, again, something that we've seen throughout the pandemic, which is why during the pandemic, working with community partners, we at d.p.h. have focused our efforts at testing, vaccine efforts, prevention services in neighborhoods most affected.

next slide. so there's been a lot of talk about the delta variants, variants in general during the pandemic. i've used the term several times already during this presentation, so just to be explicit, what is a variant? so viruses constantly change, and this is a normal process of the virus. a variant is a virus that contains changes different from the parent. some viruses have an advantage over the parent and persist or become more common, so this is basic virology, where a virus

adapts. through active genomic surveillance, scientists can identify variants that are concerning, requiring further study, and precautions. public health becomes concerned about a variant when it affects covid-19 transmission, severity, treatment, or effectiveness. we're now focusing on the delta variant, which we believe accounts for 95% of cases in san francisco, is far more transmissible than the original variant, and the clinical research scientists are

determining other factors. so the main way to fight the virus is to reduce transmission, so the virus cannot mutate if it's not reproducing, so this is another reason that vaccination is so key. the faster locally, nationally, and globally we get more people vaccinated, the less likely the virus will be able to infect more hosts, and the more likely it will be that we will be able to slow the spread of the virus. and again, as i've already said, the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths due to covid-19 are among the unvaccinated here and across the country. so vaccines are highly

effective. they are incredibly effective, but breakthrough cases are possible. but the vaccines are working. they are effective in preventing transmission of covid-19 to totally vaccinated people, and even better, they are effective at reducing hospitalization and death due

to covid-19. and, really, you know, i've said this before, it could be the difference -- if you get covid-19 and you're not vaccinated, if you're fully vaccinated versus not vaccinated -- so if you're fully vaccinated versus not vaccinated, it could be the difference between getting a case of the sniffles versus suffocation and having to go into the hospital with covid-19. i say it's the difference between spending a few days in your bed at home and weeks in the i.c.u. at a hospital. this is not to be taken lightly. these vaccines are life saving and can keep you out of the hospital, and, of course, prevent death.

here, an over eight-fold difference, eight times more likely to be hospitalized if you are not fully vaccinated for covid-19. look at this difference between these two bars. incredible difference showing the effectiveness of these vaccines at the local level. next slide.

so i also wanted to touch base on the indoor masking order that our san francisco public [inaudible] issued on august 3, requiring masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. this is an effort that aligns with c.d.c. guidance to reduce transmission of covid-19 and everyone due to the widespread covid-19 delta variant. so, you know, this delta variant is really covid is steroids, which is why vaccinations are so important, but also protecting ourselves and each other, reducing the rate of transmission by requiring us all to wear a mask in public places will protect everyone, particularly the

unvaccinated or those who have not received a vaccine and can help them get protected by availing themselves to a shot. there's lots of resources here. we are really focusing the health department on the most vulnerable communities to covid-19, reaching out to ensure that people have the right information, the correct information and particularly about the vaccines. know there's a lot of myths out there and misperceptions. we are out there making vaccine available as much as possible. in addition there's information where people can get tested, and for people who want to delve deep into the data, you can see the links to our data and reports. and finally, just to emphasize for further information about covid, the state web side and the c.d.c. -- website and the

c.d.c. websites are here to view at your leisure. and i believe that's the end of presentation, and we'll have some question-and-answer now. katy, i'll turn it back to you. >> thank you, dr. colfax, and if you do have questions, please continue to send them through the chat. we also wanted to welcome two of our incredible community liaisons who have been deployed as what we call disaster service workers throughout the response. these are individuals who have worked in different city departments, and we have called on them to assist with all that's required during this pandemic and want to thank and acknowledge everyone who has been part of that. so today, we have [inaudible] bryant, who normally works at sfmta. has been doing a lot of outreach in the community, and jessica medina, who is also

assigned at department of emergency management and has been doing a lot of work. i'll start with [inaudible]. they have been hearing many questions in the community as they've been doing outreach, so we asked them to relay some of those questions with us today, so we'll start with alfini. >> hello. good afternoon, everyone. the first question that's come in from the community is why is the delta variant so deadly, and why is it so contagious compared to the original strain? >> so can you hear me now? so thank you for the question, and it's a really important one to answer as quickly as possible. we know that the variant is much more contagious than the virus we were dealing with

before. as we said, it's covid on steroids, and basically, the virus has mutated so it allows the virus to bind better to our cells in our body. so basically, it has created a way to bind even more tightly to our cells and do it more quickly to infect us. so that's the key reason why delta is so concerning right now. the -- in terms of its causing more severe disease, there's increasing evidence that it's not only more infectious, but if you get it, you are more likely to have severe illness. that is not concluesive yet, but in talking to our ucsf clinicians and doctors there, there are emerging -- there is emerging evidence that that is

the case, and unfortunately, that trend is what we're seeing locally. so it's a series of mutations that allows the virus to enter our bodies more quickly and easily than the prior virus, and then a series of mutations that are causing the virus to create more -- potentially more serious disease. >> okay. thank you for that. jessica? >> thank you, dr. colfax. another question i have is regarding testing. we're starting to see a lot more people getting tested for covid-19. is the city going to ramp up testing again, especially that the mass testing sites have been closed? >> yes. so we ramped up testing

dramatically in both at our al -- alemany sites and [inaudible] and at this point, that increase in demand has not decreased in supply. we are working with our partners and across our health care system partners, kaiser, ucsf, sutter, and so forth, to expand testing. people who have health care providers are experiencing some delays both in getting some appointments and some delays in getting test results back, so we're working to mitigate that as much as possible. we're also working to access home test kits, which we

haven't had in prior times, to help people get rapidly tested. but we acknowledge that testing demand is increasing and, again, are working hard to expand testing options, testing hours for people so that people can get tested when they need to. >> okay. great. next, we'll go back to fini. >> okay. thanks for that. why do some people who are vaccinated experience symptoms and are being hospitalized despite the small numbers? >> yeah, so i think it's important to look at the broader numbers in san francisco. there are going to be some breakthrough infections, and especially with delta, there are going to be some breakthrough infections. when we talk about breakthrough infections, there are people who, where virus is detected, they don't have any symptoms, but their test would be positive.

and then, there are some who have mild to moderate symptoms. but we've all heard of people who got -- did what they were asked to do, stepped up, got full vaccine doses, and they got pretty sick due to covid-19. and, you know, this is the fact that if they hadn't gotten the vaccine, it's highly likely that they'd be more sick, right? possibly in the i.c.u. and possibly to the extent that they could have died, so i think we just need to look at the numbers and look at the -- the rate of infection and severe infections, and as we keep emphasizing, if people are fully vaccinated, the likelihood of their getting severe illness, the likelihood of getting hospitalized is reduced dramatically, reduced dramatically. i know people who have gotten

pretty sick who have gotten fully vaccinated, but we just need to look at the facts, and right now, the facts are because so many people in san francisco are fully vaccinated, many, many fewer people are also going to get sick. and the fact is, with delta here, it's important, if you're not fully vaccinated, to get fully vaccinated. and if you get covid-19, it is incredibly likely that it will keep you out of the hospital. >> thank you. next question? >> my next question is what is the general guidance with regard to testing currently? what about isolation and quarantine resources if people test positive? >> yeah, so, you know, in terms of getting tested, if you're -- for the -- there are a lot of different circumstances, so i won't go into those details, except to say certainly, if you have symptoms that are

consistent with covid-19, you should get tested whether or not you have been fully vaccinated, so really important, and if you are symptomatic, it's important to wear a mask indoors, even if private settings, until you get that tests. in terms of quarantine, people should quarantine until they get the result of that test as much as possible and isolate for -- for the vast majority of people, isolate if they've had a positive test for at least ten days until they don't have any symptoms. we can continue to provide isolation and quarantine

support for people. in some cases, this would mean support -- it's a place where the person is living, providing support for families, resources, or providing a spot where they could go isolate or quarantine as necessary. and at the same time, we do not have the level of isolation and quarantine hotels that we had for these last three surges, so we're continuing to work with community members and others to ensure that we're prioritizing the isolation and quarantine resources that we do have for the people who are most vulnerable, for the people who don't have another way of managing isolation and quarantine, and again, focusing on providing support for people in other ways so that they can isolate and quarantine as much as possible. >> all right. next question, fini? >> how [inaudible] is the covid-19 vaccine in the long

haul? people are scared of the variant, but some people are more scared of the vaccine and the long-term effects, as well? >> yeah, i've heard that concern, and i talk to people about it. so the covid vaccines were developed and approved quickly, which is actually a great thing because they're our way out of this pandemic. but i also think that while the vaccines were developed quickly, it's important to remember scientists have been studying these covid viruses for over 50 years, half a century. so the science that really drove how it developed has been in existence for many, many years, and this was done quickly because there was an unprecedented support in investment in this scientific

research. so right now in the world, the vaccine has been distributed to millions and millions of people, and they are safe and highly effective. you know, we obviously don't know, ten years out from now, what the effects will be, but all of the indications are that these vaccines are safe, and the long-term risks of covid-19 far outweigh the theoretical risk of any side effects of these vaccines, so just to emphasize that. now, there's also this concern about if i -- when i get a shot, especially if i get a second shot, i get symptoms, i feel fatigued, i feel sore. with the second shot, my arm really hurt for the day.

the second day, i had symptoms. you feel achy or like you have a bad case of a cold. it's not a pleasant situation, but believe me, the symptoms of covid-19 are far worse than from these vaccines. so they're just -- there are also a lot of i think myths out there that are on social immediatea and so forth, you know, the vaccines affecting your re -- media and so forth, you know, the vaccines affecting your reproductive system and so forth. that is not the case. all the experts who specialize in reproductive health are recommending that people get these vaccines. in fact, there was just a study out yesterday that shows for -- unfortunately, for pregnant women who didn't get the vaccine, they were more likely

to have their babies early, and the babies were what we call preterm babies, so that was a very negative effect of covid-19. the benefits of these vaccines far outweigh the bad sides, but we all know someone who got the shot and got sicker than they thought, or my brother got the shot and had an asthma attack a week or two weeks later, and it was, like, did that cause my asthma? no. >> thank you for that. and the last question from jessica? >> the last question is

[inaudible] should they then test again. >> so, again, this is this is a situation where they're fully vaccinated and tested positive, basically, you need to isolate for the ten days until -- until you don't have symptoms, assuming you don't have any symptoms after ten days, and there's no further recommendation to get retested again, and if you do get symptoms similar to covid-19 after that again, the best thing to do is to talk directly to your health care provider. but in general, there's no reason to get tested after the ten days after -- from the day of your positive test. so the most important thing is if you do test positive, to

isolate, to wear the mask, and for goodness sake, if you have friends and family that haven't been vaccinated yet, get them vaccinated -- support them getting vaccinated, i should say. >> all right. thank you so much to jessica and fini for all of your work in the community, as you've heard many similar questions that they all have that they've been fielding in the community, so thank you, fini and jessica. so now, i'm going to get to some of the questions that you've put in the chat. i don't think i'm going to be able to get to one of them, but i'm going to try to combine similar subjects. one thing that has been asked is will the city shutdown again, and will the city take any further efforts to reduce transmission, such as closing restaurants, bars, gyms, or any

other place with high risk settings, and do we anticipate going back to the tiered shutdown? so all of these questions have to do with a shutdown? >> so we have no plans to quote, unquote, shutdown the city again. i think we are going to mitigate the virus in ways that allow us to resume the activities that we missed so much and love while also trying to slow the spread of the virus and prevent the most serious consequences, hospitalizations and, of course, death. so vaccines are key to this. as i said multiple times here today already, they are key along with people wearing masks indoors. they are not as effective as vaccines, but they are another tool that works to slow the

spread of the virus. the other thing that we're doing is mandating vaccines in certain settings, including in health care settings, and i think as people know, the city as a whole, the city is requiring employees across departments to become vaccinated, so there is effort to make the vaccine as available as possible. we will bring the vaccine to you. in your house, if you have five or more people ready to get vaccinated, we can make that happen. and the other thing is now that we've made it as easy for people to get vaccinated, we support efforts for people not

getting vaccinated. we support requirements for vaccine. a lot of businesses are requiring to show proof of vaccine status. >> we're seeing a lot of questions in the chat about boosters and booster shots, so i'm just going to combine some of the questions here. what are the cost-benefit analysis to get a booster shot if they're ready to get

vaccinated? how effective is the pfizer and moderna vaccine against the variant, and what's the criteria if someone wants to get a supplemental shot? they've read the news about sfdph affiliated facilities accommodating those requests, and do you recommend someone getting a shot from two different companies, so if you got a moderna, getting a shot from pfizer or johnson & johnson. so many questions, similar topics. what are your thoughts about booster shots? >> i'm trying to hold all those topics. so a couple of things. starting with one of the questions that was in the

middle there was, you know, about the second shot, whether it's from pfizer or moderna. it's just really, really important to get that second shot. there is no recommendation from any major health care body in the united states, including the c.d.c. and the f.d.a., that people get boosters. i know there's a lot of questions, a lot of discussions about this. right now, we only need to focus on the support of people who haven't gotten vaccines to get the shot. that one shot is j&j or two shots of the moderna or pfizer vaccine. those are the current guidelines, and the health department has not changed its

policy with regard to that. now there's a lot of data -- there's actually some data just out today of moderna. there's a lot of discussion around pfizer with booster shots, which would be additional shots based on evidence that people may need them. there are some countries that are exploring or planning to start booster shots in certain populations. that is not happening in the united states right now. we don't know yet. it's entirely possible that booster shots would be recommended, but again, in the united states, that's not the case. now there has been some publicity about a comment that the health department made, which is giving -- if people who receive the johnson & johnson vaccine, which is a good vaccine, request an additional shot with a pfizer

or moderna vaccine, that we will accommodate that, but it hasn't been a change in our policy. but if people have talked to their health care provider and say, you know, i'd really like to have an mrna shot in addition to the johnson & johnson shot that i got, we will accommodate that, but we are accommodating that because we heard from communities that people were concerned that they were requesting it. we wanted to be responsive, and we wanted to accommodate what people were asking for in the -- in that regard. but it's not a change in policy, we're not recommending it, and we're not promoting it as a way for people to become more protected. >> okay. i know that's super helpful, just given all the questions rolling around that and the news coverage. question, especially with delta and other variants.

you recommend upgraded respiratory protection. for example, n-95 masks for unvaccinated individuals in indoor settings, so again, this is unvaccinated individuals in indoor settings. >> yeah, what i recommended for all individuals in indoor setting is to get vaccinated. we know the masks work, but they don't work as well as the vaccines. in an indoor setting, i mean, the more we know about them, really, it's both about getting that vaccine with delta here and, you know, if many people can't tolerate wearing an n-95 mask inside, so it's better to wear a surgical mask than certainly no mask at all.

but i just -- i know that with the masking, the indoor masking mandate coming back in, that that -- that we focus our attention on masks, but i also don't want to lose sight of the fact that the vaccines are so much -- so important, so protective, and easy to get right now, so both the mask and vaccine are key to us getting out of this fourth surge. >> okay. great. we have some questions about the new variant, the lambda variant. what do you know about the lambda variant in san francisco, and there's some questions that the lambda and

epsilon variants might be vaccine resistant? >> yeah, we're working with scientists and researchers as much as we can to be responsive to further variants emerging. and i think one of the key issues that we've had across the country, in the region, and, as well, is in -- in san francisco is scaling up our ability to genotype the virus. and thankfully, at ucsf, we have a lab that's leading the state in terms of genotyping. it's plausible that we'll see other variants emerge because we don't have high vaccine rates across the country, and we'll have to wait and see if

these variants cause more illness or if they spread or are more crippling than delta. but i go back to -- i sound like a broken record -- the way to keep these variants from spreading is to get vaccinated so the variants slow down. the less people the virus is able to infect, the more the virus slows down, and the less people we infect. the way to support all of this is to support all people getting vaccinated. >> all right. and we've gotten questions about have we seen any differences in outcomes, for

example, hospitalizations, for people who have received different brands of vaccine? >> yeah. locally, i'm not aware of any differences in regard to that. >> okay. and i know we've had a series of town halls focused on youth and children in schools, but we do have a couple questions here in terms of the delta variant specifically and its impact and everything on specifically three to five year olds. is it specifically safe to allow three to five-year-old children to not wear a mask in child care outdoors? what about the delta variant in pediatric outcomes? any sort of thought on the risk

of kids under 12, so questions on covid and how the delta variant is affecting children? >> so this has come up in questions from our clinical experts, and i think it's really important to emphasize right now that the public health officers, pediatricians, feel that it's incredibly important that we return our kids to in-person learning, and that this is thought that we can do it safely, we can do it safely, and it's so important for the health and wellness of our kids, our families, and our community. the best way that we can ensure that is for family members who are eligible for vaccines to get vaccinated. that can protect the children, and that can protect the school.

and we have local data that supports that, so in the last 18 months, of the children who are found to test positive for covid-19 in the schools, all those cases were tracked back to the family, so i just think it's important for us to all do our part to support that. i was just talking to a number of infectious disease experts at ucsf. you may have read the report from louisiana about children's hospitals being filled with children with respiratory illness. that's obviously a concern, and there's much more covid there, much more than we have locally. there's a much lower vaccination rate, somewhere in

the range of 35%, compared to our 75% overall, and there's no confirmation that delta causes more disease among children. right now, the consensus is that children are expect -- you know, even if children get covid-19, that they will experience milder symptoms compared to adults. but again, as we've seen during these last 18 months, this is an evolving field and we're watching it very carefully. but we want to support schools opening for in-person learning as much as possible. >> okay. thank you. we got a couple of questions about rapid testing and testing as soon as possible, so i don't know if you want to share anything about rapid tests? >> well, i think if people want to avail themselves of rapid

testing, that's something we didn't have before, so i encourage them to use it. but i'd say to very carefully follow the instructions, and if you have questions, that you consult your health care provider, so just two important caveats to the use of home test kits, and again, they should not be a substitute for getting vaccinated. getting tested itself doesn't get you vaccinated. you can test as much as you possibly can, and it's not protecting you from the virus, right? so, you know, if you're tested, get the vaccine. >> maybe just a follow-up question on that. if you can describe for the public quickly the difference between the rapid test and what we have traditionally had out there, where test results are sent to labs? >> yeah. well, i mean, i think there are a lot of different rapid tests out there, but basically, the rapid test allows you to get

the results, you know, in as short a time as 15 minutes, and those are being used in many settings across the city and at d.p.h. we're using them at our shelters right now and certainly at our testing sites so you get that result very quickly. if you -- the traditional -- the traditional test that we used earlier, our tests that take a longer time to conduct, and they can take a turnaround from anywhere from 24 to 72 hours. >> we had a lot of questions about the city shutting down again, but also specific events. we were planning for events to be held outdoors but with a lot of people.

should we still hold them? should we cancel them? is there going to be a recommendation that people reduce participating in social gatherings indoors or suspend large gatherings? any advice you have on small outdoor private gatherings, so in general, i think the questions are along the lines i think we've talked about safety in covid areas on the spectrum, if you could share that. >> yeah, it is on a spectrum. we know that being outdoors helps prevent the transmission of the virus, so that's key, as well, and the more people that you're engaging with, particularly inside, the greater the risk of transmission, especially if

there are adults there who have not been fully vaccinated. the other piece is we know that people who are older, particularly 65 and older, people who have comorbid conditions are more likely to suffer from negative consequences from this virus, so i think we just all need to think through that and do our own risk assessment to make a determination about what we're comfortable doing. there's a big difference between an indoor gathering of 5,000 people whose vaccine status hasn't been checked versus an outdoor gathering of 25 people who are fully vaccinated or, you know, people eating inside either in a group -- in a group setting, in a restaurant -- if they're vaccinated, and the staff are fully vaccinated, there's a big

difference in that risk compared to people that are not vaccinated in that setting. so i think it's just really being attentive to your own risk, the risk of the people that you love and who are around you, and making the determination about what you're comfortable doing while supporting getting vaccines and while wearing those masks indoors. >> and so along those lines, you know, especially given the high vaccination rate of our population, do you any insight of where you're seeing outbreaks in san francisco at least? i think you mentioned earlier, but any specific places or demographics or clusters? >> well yeah, i think we're seeing clusters in the neighborhood map -- on the neighborhood map that i showed. we're also seeing larger numbers the people in the 25 to 35-year-old age group who are not vaccinated.

that's our age group in san francisco that is least likely to be vaccinated, so if any of you are 25 to 35 or no 25 to 35 year olds who aren't vaccinated yet, please support them in getting vaccinated as quickly as possible. along those lines, we are seeing, when we're asking people their activities, we're seeing more outbreaks in indoor settings, including people who are frequenting bars, so that's another place where we're seeing more people. it's basically younger people -- there's a higher risk for younger people, 25 to 35 year olds, who have not been vaccinated, who are going indoors into crowded settings

where i think mask wearing is lower than it needs to be at this time. >> all right. well, i know we received many questions, and we apologize we couldn't get to all of them, but we will try to through our messages out to the public and other venues, as well, try to get as many questions addressed in those ways. our website, of information, as well. i will leave it with one last question. many people are wondering how we can live with this virus in the long run like with the flu, so what are your thoughts on that? >> well, it's hard to project into the future, but we have

the tools that work. there's a question, if you get the vaccine, will it work against mutations? the vaccine is key to keeping us from spreading the virus and from keeping us out of more serious variants, so i just want to emphasize that. i think in terms of where we'll be in the future, hopefully, we'll get more people vaccinated. the masking, indoor masking, will help slow the spread of this surge, and then, we'll have to see where we are in terms of the science around further vaccines and determine, you know, if and when additional shots are necessary. but i think right now, the answer -- the most important thing that we know now is that these vaccines are going to be

key and that the more people we get vaccinated now, the more we will be able to mitigate and -- and control the spread of this virus in our community and prevent people from dying. these are great medicines, and the vaccines are our way out. >> all right. thank you, dr. colfax. thank you to everyone who participated in this event today -- >> and if i could just say one more thing. you know, this has been a long 18 months, and i've said a lot about the virus. there's been a toll on our mental health, our ability to care for ourselves and our families, and in addition to getting the vaccine, please make sure that you're taking care of yourself and your families in the ways that are

so important for yourself to be resilient during what is a very challenging time. sorry to cut in, katy, but i wanted to say that, and thanks, everyone. >> oh, no, thank you to you, dr. colfax, and thank you to everyone who participated and thank you to sfgovtv, as well. if you want to view this again, it'll be available on sfgovtvs youtube channel. so thanks, everyone, and have a wonderful day.

madam secretary, will you call the role, please. >> clerk: [roll call] >> clerk: we have commissioners present. we have quorum. the department of public health and the governor mission and mayor breed have lifted restrictions on teleconferencing. this meeting is being held via teleconference. for those of you watching the live stream, please be aware of the live and what's being aired on sfgov tv. if