. >> clerk: president honda will be the presided officer today commissioner lazarus and commissioner jose lopez. also deputy city attorney brad

russe will provide any legal advice this evening. and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by the representatives from the state department that will be presenting to the board this evening. scott sanchez, and joseph duffy, acting deputy director for the department of building inspection. the board requests that you turn off and silence all phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants, permit members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each and no rebuttal. to grant an appeal or modify or make a determination.

please e-mail board staff at boardofappeals@sfgov.org. ever effort has been made to replicate the in-person process. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to read public comment on each item of the agenda. to watch the hearing on tv, go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on our website sfgov.org/boa. join the zoom meeting by computer. please go to our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in. 1 (669) 900-6833. and webinar i.d. 89085767376.

and once again sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. to block your phone number when calling in, first dial star 67 then your the phone i couldn't remember. dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we new you want to speak. you will answer two or three minutes. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note there is a delay between the live stream. therefore, it's very important that people calling in reduce the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise, there's interference of the meetings. if any of the participants are attending on disabilities, you

can make a request in the chat or send an e-mail to boardofappeals@sfgov.org. the chat cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear in and affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the person without taking an oath. if you intend to testify in any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> director: okay. thank you. if you're a participant, and you're not speaking, please put your phone speaker on mute. we will go to item number one which is general public comment. this is for the public to speak on an item that's not on tonight's calendar. is there any members of the public that wishes to speak on

items not on tonight's agenda. the caller whose phone number ends in 8217. please go ahead. >> good evening. i affirm what i'm about to say. good evening to everyone. i sent a video last week on friday, september 17th and it was of the project that was before the board on june 2019 appealing the site permit. at the hearing, it was discovered there wasn't then approved by the planning commission as a three-bedroom subterranean local garage unit did not have for the two to three bedrooms and the unit had become a one-bedroom unit so the board required a redesign that the unit must have three bedrooms. and it took awhile. and it was very difficult and it made a ladder from down

there to the upper levels and in the meantime, the original owner sold and i see the video's on the screen now and what i wanted to highlight in the video were two things. one is that it's the soon to be gone original 19 that's unique to san francisco late mary brown's study. and of our residential neighborhood. the second focus is on the garage level, there's minimal excavation for the ceiling height and there's a second unit on that level. this particular project is allowed to go out post of the 205% rear yard line. so it could have been more than

nothing interior space to include three bedrooms, all in one level with the other necessary living space and to maintain a rear yard with soil and greenery which this one will not have because the rear yard open space will be not much more than a bunker. so i know you deal with excavations and the planning vision doesn't like to deal with excavations. i don't do you think that this project sponsor, it's the second project sponsor. he paid $2 million for it from the original project sponsor back in 2019. this is $2.6 million i've been told just to do this one little subterranean unit that's got questionable livability. so what's my point? my point is this is a very poor template for gentrification whether it's an alteration or demolition. and i know that these things are abstract and abstract to me even though i thought it was

going to be kind of crazy, but seeing it in real time right across the street from it. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. is standing so i encourage you to talk to mr. longway and if you want to find out where it is, come out and see it because everything should see it for themselves. thank you, everybody have a good evening take care. be well. be safe. bye bye. >> director: thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comment? please raise your hand. if not, then we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. president honda, we couldn't hear you. >> president honda: i just said none. sorry. >> director: okay. we will move on to item number three. the adoption of the minutes of the september 1, 2021, meeting. >> president honda: may i have a motion to accept those

minutes. >> commissioner: i'll make that motion. >> director: okay. is there any public comment on vice president swig's motion to adopt these minutes? if so, please raise your hand. okay. since there's no public comment on that motion, commissioner lopez, [roll call] okay. so that motion carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number 4a through 4d. these are appeal number 21-054. 21-055, 21-057, and 21-058. subject property is 1318 18th street appealing the issuance on june 14th, 2021, to thomas

frenkel construct a wood platform over an existing concrete patio. and note on july 28, 2021, the board voted 5-0 to continue these appeals to september 22nd so that the departments can inspect the subject property to determine what action is necessary to bring the project into compliance with the building and planning codes. and to revise plans that are code compliant and the board further recommended that the deck beset back five feet on each side and i understand that deputy director duffy has inspected the property, so he will address the board first. and, mr. duffy, you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. joe duffy d.b.i. it took me a few weeks to get out to the site. that was due to my schedule to be honest with you but i did get there last week and city

brought a senior building inspector mark walls from plan check with me. we did meet with the owner and her architect and another representative. there were some issues we would have been concerned about on the building code. one of the them it would be if it was going to be used for public use, it would add to the occupant load of the inside of the bar and that would then require some upgrades possible. the other thing would be to the access. it's going to be used full time for public use what's funny about it is the deck itself on top of the existing concrete patio. if it was only to put that decking on top of the patio, it would not require a building permit.

however, like i said. that's where the building code would kick in. the areas above the deck level, the wood structure that's there, it's like a series it's like a trellis or pergala. i also believe at this time they're not willing they're going to give up the right to use that area for public use and they're happy to go through a process to do that. i think that the permit probably, are the permit that they have definitely is a good permit. the one talk of chancing a permit, but i think that we want it to get back to sports

tonight. i think they want to start again i'm early with removing everything about the deck and they're only keeping that area for it would not be a lot for the bar. i'm available for any questions. i do think that the representative of the property wants to address the board as well. >> director: thank you. we have questions from. >> president honda: president honda we couldn't tell how elevated the material was over the ground. and like you said it's just what we would consider a platform and not a deck, correct. and so and i'm glad that you brought that up because, you

know, by adding that square footage, that creates zoning and usage issues as well. so i think maybe i will defer to the project sponsor's representative to define what they want to do going forward. thank you very much. >> director: thank you. vice president swig. we can't hear you. >> commissioner swig: yep. i'm here. so last time we met, it seems that we were trying very hard to not only pay attention to the statute and related items. and ultimately, i felt we were trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. bottom line, mr. duffy, should we just call it a day on this

and take your advice to cancel the permit and start a fresh one because of all the dominos that seem to be shifting and also the square peg in a round hole and vice versa? >> yeah, commissioner swig and president honda. i think that that's what the permit holder wants to do as well to be honest with you. they want to start again on the right foot. i completely understand why they hadn't done this. it was during the time of covid. you know, it's actually a nice space, but you can understand that the infrastructure's foul and i think there's a process they can meet the building code and planning code and keep the neighbors happy as well. but this isn't the permit to do it with. and as i said, we were going to

cancel the permit and revoke the permit and start again and we've been back and forth in the past few days we mails and i think that's the direction he's happy to go with as well. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> director: we will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. so in terms of this permit i would agree with kind of a consensus it'd be best to start over and deny this permit so they can come back and properly permit the structure which would involve moving that overhead element. there's really two issues from a planning perspective on this. first is regarding the proper permitting of the structure that is there. maybe we don't believe it was properly permitted. the proposal then would be to obtain the permit to remove the

overhead structure. the only thing remaining would be the platform in the existing patio area and railing around that, that's 42" tall and that would be code compliant. that would address the structure. the second part of it is the use. currently under the planning code, there would be two paths by which the property, the rear yard could be used as for commercial purposes and we understand from the permit holder that they discontinued commercial use of the rear yard since june. so that violation has been abated to that process. but if they do have a desire to use it in the future, there would be two paths available for them to do that. the standard process for that air area and that would allow the commission to regulate

necessary use. the second is that was created over the course of the pandemic which is the shared spaces program. the shared spaces program was made permanent, however, not all of it was made permanent and so the ability to use the rear yard in this case for a bar would only be allowed under the current temporary share of uses permitting program. any permits issued under that, they're ministerial. i don't know if there will be future limitations to make it permanent. and anything that's approved on shared spaces under private property are 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. lastly, kind of the other potential use of the property under the planning code. those are the regulations, but

it could be used as a break area for the employees that work there or for residents that live in the unit above. that would be allowed under the planning code without any additional permits. i think the most straight forward process would be to revoke this permit and then they can remove the unpermitted overhang and go through the appropriate process to have a use back there should they choose to do so. thank you. >> director: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: scott, after hearing the last hearing, it was a little concerning that not only the zone violation, the planning code violations as well as the building code violations and if this permit was going to go forward, i was probably going to suggest an n.s.r. regarding this. what is your opinion on this going forward? >> so right now assuming they want to do it beyond the end of the year, they would need a

conditional use authorization from the planning commission and the planning commission would be able to impose, to regulate the use, they would impose an n.s.r. as part of that process conditioning limiting potentially occupancy, hours of the use in the back. so i think that would be one way of regulating it. so i don't know that, you know, right now the board, you wouldn't have the ability to improve an outdoor activity there because they don't have authorization for that and you can't grant that through this permit. so in terms of a condition, i don't know what the board could impose as a condition there. i guess potentially if the board didn't ever want there to be a smeshl use back there you might be able to impose but i

think defer and the public is committed to doing so. >> director: . thank you. we will now hear from the representative for the permit holder. >> president honda, members of the board, i'm the agent for the property owner thomas frenkel and i see that the operator is also available barbara teiss. looking at it it's real simple. they asked for a permit for the wood platform. as we know now, you do not need a permit for a wood platform that's less than 30". it would have never been a

permit. there would have never been a permit. if there wasn't an appeal, we wouldn't be talking right now, so, yes, we concur with mr. duffy and mr. sanchez. that would take care of this appeal. so under what you're looking at strictly, that's along this road. the other items, i guess it's under notice of enforcement. they will diligently over the next 30 days file for a permit to remove the overhang for the permit and they have ceased using the exterior for the patrons and they have no intention of using it and they will not use it unless they have proper permitting and if it is a conditional use

authorization as you know there will be special restrictions that will be recorded. so i'm here for any questions. ms. tiess is here for any questions you may have in the project. we want to thank you very much and sorry this matter even came in front of you. >> director: okay. thank you. i don't see any questions. so we will now hear from the appellants. mr. rehabinowitz you will go first. >> hi, i'm the appellant. eric rehabinowitz. i want the board to understand the issues. the plans submitted two days before this hearing. there was no mention of correcting all the other building and fire code corrected by electrical wires along the property line. when i asked them for more information, they didn't provide much. one other point i want to bring up here was that we keep

talking about this like how much is it above ground. there's a over 100" wall that's covered in concrete, that's a big deck. essentially, they put a deck on top of that. so it's towering. this is not like a few inches above ground that we're talking about. in any case, i fully support inspector duffy's statement that a new permit be required and d.b.i. can review a plan with the rear yard and its original condition without trying to figure out all of the violations and building and planning codes. the board should not have to spend more energy on this illegal construction and the building applied for after the fact. following inspector duffy's recommendation, please object the permit on appeal and order the legal construction. the permit should first be reviewed by the planning department. plan checked by d.b.i. so it can be properly vetted to ensure planning codes, buyer codes, and building codes are

all met. last point i want to make is that a major planning code violation that i see no action on is the denial of the second floor dwelling to the tenant's usable open space, the back yard. the removal of the stairwell was done without permit and noticed two neighbors that was never provided or granted by the neighbors. thank you. i'm done. >> director: thank you. we have a question from vice president swig. >> commissioner swig: i'm going to ask a question not directed to the appellant but on behalf of the appellant to mr. duffy or mr. sanchez and that is you heard from the appellant that there's concern about related issues, he listed them including the second floor situation. when this permit assuming this permit is seems to be the way we're going is revoked or canceled, and assuming that

this happened and it happens and the property owner calls for a new permit. will all of the items that the appellant is listing, will they all be taken into account as part of the second issuance of the permit? mr. duffy, you can answer if you want since most of them are d.b.i.s. >> i think actually, the issue of the deck. there's an exception of the san francisco building code on the deck. there is a platform. and we consider that a deck. 30" or less above ground does not require a building permit. so if you've got a flat back yard and you're on grade and you want to put a low level deck on there like you see

people put decks on top of, you see it all the time, the san francisco code doesn't side for that. when you go down to the rear yard, you basically can see the concrete patio right below the deck. so the gentleman mentioned that there's a 10' wall, well, we go from the ground level and the ground level in my opinion is the concrete patio unless i'm missing something. you know, if they want to keep a low-level deck on top of that patio, again, i have to reiterate, as long as it's not for public use because once you start putting people in there, the occupant and the building code kicks in and that means you have the ability to house more people inside a converted space. businesses 49 or less. once you go over that, it's about 750' of floor area where customers can stand.

the deck in the rear yard would just be separate of the inside of the bar. >> president honda: deputy director. sorry to interrupt you. but i think vice president swig's question was that an egress from the secondary unit above was removeded without benefit of permit and how is that going to be dealt with. now that that's been removed, you now need a 311 notification. was that your question, vice president swig? >> commissioner swig: i just want to see how the dominos were going to fall. thanks for being so detailed on that, mr. president, as well as the alleged electrical and plumbing issues that might exist. >> sorry, vice president swig. in my opinion, they were not brought up and they can be looked at by d.b.i. and also follow up with the inspector there.

we have a building inspector. we're more than happy to do that. [inaudible] plumbing can be dealt with separately. the unit was not made require egress on a single unit and our fire escape, but if the code does not require that in my opinion and however it was removed and it wasn't documented, it probably should be on any future permit going forward. >> commissioner swig: so, in summary, and this was asked on behalf of the appellant and for my information as well. if there are any concerns by the appellant of any other problem issues that he suspects, then the proper protocol for that appellant to inform d.b.i. or planning is to

request to file a notice of violation or submit some information which might result in a notice of violation, correct? >> yeah. you would file the complaint with dbi and i can look into it. if mr. sanchez is going to speak to answer his planning part, let me look up and see if we already received any plumbing or electrical in the last few months. >> president honda: okay. deputy zoning administrator. you've been waiting patiently. >> thank you. i usually don't wait patiently. i appreciate the appellant's comments and information about the stair removal. we were not aware of that. that's something we were looking into. it is an issue for usable open space. there hasn't been egress, that would be something for d.b.i. and it sounds like that would be okay. but for accessing the open

space. had there been stairs accessing the back yard. removal of those stairs would require a variant because you'd be using that code required open space: i had looked into this and looked at some past aerial photos going back a few years. i did not see a stair there, so if the appellant has any information along those lines, they can e-mail it to me. scott.sanchez@planning.org. >> director: thank you. we will hear from the next appellant, mr. bill johnson. mr. johnson, you have three minutes.

mr. johnston are you with us? >> here i am. thank you. good evening, everyone. it sounds like the direction of starting over on the platform is going forward so i'm not going to belabor that. i think that is the right decision and the right direction. i don't have a lot to add from my july 28th statement. just two points that i do want to make again on the platform that's being proposed. if you look at the building just to the east of the platform, there is a double hung window that is about 35" above that platform and if the platform butts up to that property, i don't understand, it seems to be not an

acceptable way to have a commercial platform next to a building. so that again i'm sure the building department and planning would look at that, but i wanted to just go back to the july 28th hearing that after the presentations by everyone and the board discussion, president honda stated that the board was leading to not allowing any patron use of the back area into perpetuity and that no subsequent proposition or motion would change this position and i believe this is correct and appropriate action and encourage the board of appeals to make their decision in order of use. this order would safeguard into the future that blooms or any subsequent business owner tenant would not be able to encroach on the privacy of the residential backspaces. so i'd like that to be

considered and thank you for the time. >> director: thank you. we will now hear from michael magnuson. >> thank you. i guess i'm a little concerned by some of the comments made tonight. i'm just concerned that somehow this is going to be history repeating itself in the future and i thought it would be helpful to use my time to reiterate how we got here as quickly as i can. this rear yard is in a private residential area that's not appropriate for noisy commercial activity. and blooms has never had the ability to use their rear yard for patrons. it was never for patron use. they went ahead and built an illegal deck and served bar patrons on it regularly for six months. they did it without seeking approval from the neighbors of

any kind. then, when we checked in with them about it really trying to be patient to support our local businesses, we were assured this was a temporary measure to get through the remainder of the pandemic. we agreed as good neighbors to make that temporary sacrifice. then in june, just as the pandemic imposed restrictions were being lifted, they tried to retroactively legalize the structure and doing this, they lied to city personnel by not indicating it had already been built. then, back in july, we all gathered here for my recollection, the better part of three hours during which time one of the things they stated is that it has been their intention all along to serve bar patrons on the deck. we then shared that the neighbors, basically our experience being unpleasant and unsustainable experience of what it's like to have a public bar move into your private back yard and the degree to which

that affects the livability of our homes for us and our children and bedrooms are basically hearing barroom conversation, i was glad at that time to hear commissioner swig state he would really like the neighbors to be able to resume our quiet use of our homes and that the deck should be limited to storage and employee breaks and never drinking, smoking, or hanging out. i appreciated that commissioner lazarus thought the cleanest thing to do was no patron use. president honda's summary of the board by concluding the board was using no patron use and from what i see here, nothing has changed. the only thing that happened was bloom's was asked to file some permits which they failed to do by the deadline. then when they did, they still have open questions about whether they can even be legal in the first place, but nothing has changed in regards to the use of this property and the appropriateness of having bar

patrons back here. so i would urge the board to please fall your own conclusion from the previous meeting by making this a permanent outcome of this hearing that this is not for patron use. thank you. >> director: thank you. commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i actually have a question for our deputy city attorney, so i'll stand back if anybody has questions for this appellant. okay. mr. rossy before we get too far down the road, if our action is to simply uphold the appeals and deny the permit, it doesn't seem to me that we can go a whole lot further in what other restrictions we might want to impose because all we're doing is revoking a permit. so i'd just like to hear your thoughts on that, please. >> good evening, commissioners. brad russe deputy city attorney. commissioner lazarus, in response to your question, i

would agree that the board revoke the permit that they cannot place conditions on that particular action. i would further to follow up on that as explained by mr. sanchez, the use of the deck by patrons for commercial use is already prohibited. so if the bar were continue to do that, they would be in violation of the planning code. >> commissioner lazarus: thanks. >> director: thank you. we have another hand raised. >> president honda: president honda sorry. i want to kind of piggy back on commissioner lazarus's question. if we take that and putting that condition into perpetuity understanding but an n.s.r. is a way to cross the t. and put a period at the end of that

sentence. >> commissioner honda, i think it depends on what action the board takes with respect to the permit, whether the permit is going to be granted in some respect, then i guess it either could be potentially an n.s.r. added to the -- >> president honda: what's before us is simply the platform or the deck permit. it's not anything to do with the canopy or anything else, so we can grant that permit because it actually probably didn't even need a permit, but since it's in front of us we can grant that permit and condition the permit with a notice of special restrictions. >> director: i believe the permit is not code compliant, president honda, under the building and planning codes. >> president honda: i see mr. sanchez raising his hand. >> essentially, we know what the resolution is in termings of the code compliance that it

involves the removal of that overhead structure and affirming that the use of that does not allow commercial use. so i think the board maybe don't have everything that you would need to take that action tonight, but i would refer to your deputy city attorney and deputy director. it maybe proper for the board to grant the appeal, remove the revised plans that remove the overhead structure that the platform itself doesn't need a permit, part of the conditions that are out there. the height of the railing. you know, all of those could be documented and then the board could perhaps impose conditions relative to the use, restricting the use only to usable open space for the unit above and for, you know, breaks and not for commercial activity, that would be consistent with current code. you wouldn't be allowing something that doesn't comply with current code.

you would be reinforcing that and if they ever wanted to change that condition in the future, i would refer to your deputy city attorney as to how that can be done. but i assume it would be back to the board of appeals. >> president honda: thank you for clarifying that, mr. sanchez. >> director: okay. we will now hear from the next appellants. mr. yasuda and ms. sato. >> nancy and i have the same concerns on the plans to use the back patio area. we agree with the preliminary findings after that last board of appeals meeting on july 28th. they revealeded the use of the deck in 2021 did not have temporary use authorizations. bloom's never applied for or received conditional use and never received use for shared spaces as well and, ochg, it did not comply with the building permit, they did not have a building permit when

they built it and even what they did build was in violation. without this background, my concern was this last discussion we just had about the existing deck that can be there as a deck, but, you know, it's calling out the elm at that point elephant in the room. that's been there what they've been doing all along is kind of nibbling away at the rules to allow them to get access. my question, this is actually a question, first of all to planning and inspection, but if they later apply for a t.u.a. or a conditional use permit to use that outside area for commercial use, then what i heard is the deck they have is now is no longer legal because it was only legal if it was just a deck for use by the residents of the upper unit, but, in fact, if it's for commercial use, then they have

to comply with the other code regulations. so i'd like a response to that after i speak. my broader comment, bloom's has shown to me a problematic behavior. building a deck without a permit. misleading the permit application failing to acknowledge patron use and even using the t.u.a. really for bar commercial use, not community use as i think the intent is of the t.u.a. and so my question is that if they do not use the area for commercial use, no problem. to me, it's always been clearly evident that even with this ruling to remove the structure, that's, you know, in their interest to do that. so i would like to go back to again what president has said earlier about trying to eliminate the use of commercial use in perpetuity and just piggy backing on scott's

comments, what i heard him say is that there is a permit required for the roof structure. so with that, i would like them to tag that with an n.s.r. to eliminate any future commercial use of that area. so that's my request for the board. thank you. >> director: thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised. ms. sharon tetlo, please go ahead. >> is it working? >> director: yes. all right. >> thank you. so i just want to say first of all thank you for the last hearing and for the inclination to prevent further public use of bar patrons on the back

deck. and i support everything the four appellants shared. i wanted to point out that the permit says "a back deck above a concrete deck" and what was built was far more, not just the roof structure, but please note there's at least a 10' or 12' high wall which sounds like it's higher than 48" and i would love for the board of appeals and the building department to address the legitimacy of that. also, i'll point out that over the last two weeks, bloom's has turned their phone off so nobody can contact them when the noise gets too high and i think this contributes to the history of disingenuous behavior with respect to bloom's. so i would really support what the other appellants, what the appellants have pled for which

is a mechanism to permanently keep bloom's from having the moral hazard, the risk that they seem to find so irresistible of serving bar patrons on the back deck. thank you. >> director: okay. thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? please raise your hand. okay. seeing none. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: so commissioners, would anyone like to start this off? no one? >> commissioner: i'll go. if nobody else volunteers. do we do the simple l thing which is to fine for the appellant which would sustain the permit and let nature take its course or do we go a more

complex route and try to put everything into a basket while approving a permit which nobody seems to be excited about. so i think the simple way and now that everything has been disclosed, i mean, this horse is pretty out of is art and in public testimony, d.b.i. is now aware that there are possible plumbing, electrical, and other building infringements. planning is clearly aware that there may be some things that were built illegally and don't pass muster under any circumstances. clearly, planning is aware there hasn't been not only intention but an actual illegal use of putting patrons on a platform or deck, whatever you

want to call it and which is against the planning code. so all these horses are out of the barn. so i feel comfortable that we simply go in a direction of holding the appeal and suspending the permit and then let the protocol take its course because i'm sure they'll be lots of eyes on all these elements that have been fully exposed in testimony. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i want to second what vice president swig just offered. i would offer one correction. it's not suspending the permit, it will be revoking the permit and they will have to start all over and as you say, there will be all kinds of watchful eyes on this and it's pretty clear we've heard from city staff that there are rules and regulations on how this can be used and under what

circumstances. so my inclination is to go with a simple granting of the appeal and of the permit. >> president honda: is that a motion? >> we haven't heard from anybody else. >> president honda: i think that's a great motion. i just want to add my two cents in. i think unfortunately, we're in some challenging times and businesses have to do what they have to do to keep their businesses afloat. i just see a repeat history of bad practice and poor neighbor relations. an n.s.r. would curtail that indefinitely, but if the board is inclined to make that motion, i would support that as well. i'm just not sure, like i said, they violated the zoning planning building without any regard and so what's to stop them from trying to do this again and going and applying

for the permit. but again, vice president has mentioned what he thought and you did as well commissioner lazarus. go ahead and make your motion. i would support that as well. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. i will move to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that it was not properly issued. what might be the right? >> director: does not comply with the building and planning codes. >> commissioner lazarus: perfect. yes. >> director: okay. we have a motion to grant the appeal and overturn the permit in that it does not comply with the building and planning code. on that motion, [roll call] so that motion carries 5-0. thank you. we are now moving on to the next item which is item number

five. tim louie versus the department of building inspection. july 19th, 2021, to richard ruhland and rhonda cartwright of an alteration permit roof gutter siding sidewalk to comply with complaint. this is permit number 202107194604 and we will hear from the appellant first. i believe the appellant's attorney maddie vax is present. welcome. >> hi, good evening. my name is madelyn vax and i represent the -- i represent tim louie whose family owns 120 dorcas way. mr. louie is the appellant in

this case. today, i am asking the board to revoke the building permit that was granted to the permit holder the department of inspection and when work is outside the scope of the permit, it's not allowed. to remedy an encroachment. the permit holder is now proposing to do new work with new plan which would exceed the scope of his existing permit which is the permit at issue in this appeal. we had hopes to resolve this during the party's prior hearing but were not able to do so and the contractor for the permit holder who is acting as their representative did not wish to continue the matter so dpoo it the fact we're attempting to settle. so i'm here to request that the board of appeals revoke this

permit. i'd like to share my screen. and show. can you see that? so this is the work at issue. this is the photo of the southern wall of the permit holder's property and the encroachment is the butter and the down spout that running along new siding. the gutter and the down spout are attached to the permit holder's property, but encroached over the property line onto appellant's property. next, i will show a copy of the survey. this survey -- >> director: you can pause

your time if you need. alex, please. >> yeah. you have to get out of one. >> okay. i'm just trying to make it a little bigger. >> director: we can't see the survey right now. we just see the siding with the pipe. alex. >> yeah. you have to get out of the one slide to get to the next one. >> i object to this survey. >> director: excuse me. you cannot object at this time. >> okay. >> director: you'll have an opportunity when it's your time to present. so please don't interrupt. okay. please resume the time. >> time resuming. >> thank you. so this is the survey which definitively show that this work is an encroachment. the property line is indicated by the black line in the center of the survey. the permit holder is to the north of the property line and

my client is the southerly part of the drawing. as you can see, the gutter is encroaching about 5" and the drainpipe is also encroaching by 3". and the siding in the last photo is exactly flush with the property line. sorry. i just have one more slide. >> director: can you pause the time please, alex. >> time is paused. >> director: thank you. >> thank you. so this is a notice of violation that was issued on june 29th for the unpermitted work that was performed by an unlicensed contractor and the work obviously crossed my client's property and to abate

the notice of violation, i'll just go to the bottom, the permit holder was required to hire a licensed contractor to secure required permit, to correct violation, and to schedule inspections. so to hear the first part of the violation, the contractor who initially did this work in an unpermitted way without a license, got his license reinstated. second, the permit holder was required to secure the necessary permit and those permits is the permit that's at issue here and the permit holder got on july 19th and a plumbing permit was also required but it's not the subject of this appeal. third, the permit holders were required to correct violation including the encroachment that is indicated in this notice of violation which is shown up above here and when i approached the contractor about the removal, he told me that my

client was actually encroaching over the permit holder's property line and that he would not comply with this notice of violation requiring him to remove the encroachment until we acquired a survey. so we went out and got the survey. and, finally, he was required to schedule inspection. these have not been done because of this appeal. so when it became clear that the permit holder would not remove the encroachment until we provided a survey which established that his unpermitted and unlicensed work was an encroachment, we filed this appeal on the additional work being done. the contractor has since agreed to remove the encroachment, but the parties have not reached an agreement for access and the party is proposing new work with new plan. the new work will exceed the scope of the permit at issue. please revoke this permit. the permit holder has new plans that need to be submitted to

d.b.i. and he is proposing new work. he needs a new permit that describes the scope of the work. we've been meeting and conferring and he intends to do so, but we don't want work allowed to be continued while we figure out the issue. thank you. >> director: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: so by your last name, is this the first appearance of the next generation of the zacks going on here to the board of appeals? >> some would say that is happening right here. >> president honda: i just want to give you a warm welcome. >> thank you. >> director: okay. thank you. we will now hear from agents of the permit holder mr. coleman, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. so the objective here has been to and remains the health and safety of the occupants at 120 dorcas. because of the water intrusion at that property, we thought it was necessary to fully address the troubled area and

circumvent the problem while improving the design of the original construction. now, i have discovered that this whole problem has become a monumental issue and much to do about nothing as far as it seems to me. i have personally reached out to discuss with the appellant as well as their attorney and even one step further to ask the assistance of the district supervisor's office whose staff member ms. fiber called the appellants directly to attempt to discuss a resolution only to receive a less than warm reception from mr. louie. [please stand by]

and create a worse problem for 120 dorcas and the occupants. the fact remains that this work is unfinished and the work may cause further water intrusion to the tenants home at 120 dorcas as well as a roof water draining into the light well and unconnected downspouts that do not run into the sewer system as required by his san francisco plumbing code. possible water running onto the street will cause apedestrian walking hazard . this is clearly a health and safety issue and for that reason we need to work together

to resolve this issue as well as reasonable satisfaction to all parties and alec, if you would showthe drawing that i sent you . this shows that we propose to do that's the white well . and you can see the siding that's on the house comes out about three inches, so it's right at theproperty line . we would take off that section of siding and put the pipe right to it. it would be like cutting a piece of siding on theoutside. we have a permit to work on the siding of the light rail , we don't see that being a big issue and i'm sure we could go down and modified the permit or add an addendum to the permit. i'm sure you could comment on that mister duffy if you need to but we're trying to do everything we canto resolve this to keep this property say

. if you go to the next slide you'll see we have a custom madegutter flush to the stucco . take that siding off the side and tie it to the downspouts. those do not tie into the system because we can't work over there. i would love to finish this thing off and get this off my plate and everybody's plate and i'm willing to dowhat's necessary and i'm looking for help , please . thank you >> thank you. anybody else have aquestion ? >> the first one is what communications you have or did the plant have with the neighboring property of the appellants prior to doing the work? >> are you speaking to me? what we did was we came up and introduced myself and i introducedmyself to the carpenter so we got a roofer coming . we're going to start this work

today or tomorrow and we should be finished either 30th. are going to need access to your property on your side. is that okay? mister louis said come by anytime and the carpenter's name is ben. i am then and we both laughed aboutit . we've got the same name so we did that prior to starting anything. >> the issue i had after reading the brief is how isthe work performed and evidently the appellant allowed you to do work on his property . i see that a piece of the fence was removed of the appellant's property. was that explained that you would be altering his property? >> technically now that we have asurvey that's been introduced , it shows we have three inches from the building.

so that's technically the property so that three inch cut for that pipe is actually my clients property at 120 dorcas. >> if you look at the piece that was cut out it looks like more than four inches. >> who said that? >> it looks likethere's a four inch removal from that fence . >> it could be. i didn't measure that. i think it's three inches because it's very tight to the pipe and the pilot is a three inch pipe . i wasn't therebecause we hired a sheet-metal guide to come out and do the work . we hired a roofer. we hired a carpenter. frankly this was the perfect storm where everybody was available before the holidays beforethey left for the fourth of july weekend .

>> san francisco has zero lot lines and the appellant has performed a survey. is your client plate paying for a survey as well or are you accepting their survey? >> we haven't seen a filed survey. that's the draft. but i'm sure that's a valid survey, my client would probably accept it. i think that would be reasonable. >> thank you counselor. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planningdepartment . >> nothing to add. really no planningissues here so i defer to the deputy director . >> no glasswork, i don't see that very often. >> thank you. we will hear from the department ofbuilding

inspection . >> this is chair duffy. the building permit, the description on the permit report from dvi is that roof gutter sidewalk comply with the gutter, downspouts and a clearing roof and the light well.july 19, 2021, suspended on july28, 2021 . a few things there on the permit. dvi requires as both the civil code that all worktake place within your own property .and you know, the downspouts includes roofing and includes flushing. as you know we speak about it a lot.

they want to do the work inside theirown property but for some reason the downspouts on the pipe ended up on the other side . we did have an anotice of violation from our plumbing inspection division. it was , there were permits and the last two weeks our inspector had mentioned we had emails back and forth from miss jackson i believe to her office and the inspector spoke with someone and assured them that the downspouts or any of the work would take place inside 120 dorcas way. i think one of the issues, it sounds like the gentleman want to do that but in order to do the work , he's going to have to do it from the other side probably. that's probably a bigger problem because of access and now we've got an appeal and bad blood here.in my experience with light rails are if you've got a light rail, it's on the

insideand the roofing , your allowing water out but the light rail on the roofing, you would rub it down on the inside.that might be hard for them to do, it's easy for me to say but typically we don't see downspouts goingover the building on to someone else's property . there is a way there as well for them to diverge onto their side and then as i said run into the drain. i'm just giving you my experienceover the years . i'm a property owner myself and i know that the right light rail, that's how it works. dvi are happy to resolve to get this worked out.

if there's water leaking into the property they want to get it fixed assoon as possible but they have to do it rub the rightway . >> we dohave a question from president honda . >> inspector duffy , it's probably finishing here below and that maybe the challenge to the drainage. what is your opinion regarding the permit properly issued or not? >> my big question, the reason i said i read it from the permit support, i did see i think the permit was onthe breakers well. it's not a great description for work or it does sound like they want to do something with the gutter. they want to replace the gutter downspout and replace the roofing and the light rail . [inaudible] if he wants to get

another permit to do some siding work or the outlet for the water comingoff the light rail will be inside the wall, i would understand that the problem is going to be access to be able to do the work . that would probably be a third way of going forward. and if he does need another additional permitreplaced , removed and replaced some siding, they can get that permit. [inaudible] does say the word siding on the permit but i don't know what that means . >> as we've both been on the board, you've been on the board longer than i have we've seen it where zero outlines do not allow anyone to enter the property and it's been quite messy and generally we recommend for them to sit down and have a conversation and work things out and try to avoid the department and this

board. as far as the permit that's here before, the survey that was done which i believe it was just done recently and there's three inches according to the survey for the other property and then it goes three inches into the appellant's property. do you think that bill says drainage for that pipe is to be considered co-compliant and not being onsomebody else's property ? >> dvi tries to stay out of that. >> i don't meanto put you on the spot . >> very good question. it comes up a lot at dvi. if we are given a survey as pointed out where that property line is i think obviously anything on whichever side the word is taking place on if it's on their property than it is

allowed. i don't know where that three inches is but we try to stay out of the survey war because that'sgoing to have to be civil and they can go to litigation . i could go to some of the people in his office said on issues like this and they can get messy and very drawn out and long and i hope that doesn't happen in this case because i think we've got a lake in the light rail that needs tobe fixed . i would encourage them to figure this out. this is not a big deal. get togetherand get it figured out . that's the board ofappeals having to bring this to the board of appeals i think is pretty sad actually . >> clerk: we willnow move on to public comments, anyone here to provide public comment on this

item , please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment so we will move on to remodel. miss dax you have three minute . >> i wanted to touch on one pointfirst of all i'd like to see my client completely contests the fact that there was any communication before the initial work was done . we maintain that mister holman trespassed under onto my husband property to do this work and in addition inspector duffy mentioned that the idea here is always to do things the right way and we believe based on mister holman showing new plans to do new work there needs to be a new permit so we can documenteverything that goes on . like president honda noted there was a fence that was cut out. mister pullman's subcontractors continue to do workafter the permitwas finished and we had

to file another complaint about that . there was damage done to my clients fence or flower bed in front of the property by subcontractors that were there . we understand all of the problems with the water. we understand we're about to get treatments, we just don't want this work to continue on this permit because it doesn't and captain encapsulate what is going to be done . >> clerk: we have a question from president honda. >> president:your client had a survey performed and due to what was presented three inches from the property line is where the survey marker lands, is that correct ? >> a portion at issue here is the downspout and the gutter and the gutter is about five inches off the property and that'sthree inches over the property line .>> given that fact i see your client extends all the way to his walls so that means your client is encroaching into that survey as well .

>> it's not encroaching, it's on the property line. >> i didn't see a three inch gapbetween the property line or between the permit holders property and your fence . do you understand what i'm saying? if you're telling me there's three inches that are in there, that means your client is encroaching onto the neighbors property if that's correct . as acting deputy director duffy said when you run a survey you take arisk of hearingsomething you don't want to know . at this point , my suggestion really is that you guys sit down and talk because this is going to be messy as you don't have to let him on your property but you guys live next to each other . if your survey says three inches, i can see that the catch on top is evidently higher or wider than three

inches. i think at this point you guys should figure this out because i can't tell what's beforeus is if this permits properly issued and potentially it isn't at this point . >> we will now hear from mister coleman, you have 2 minutes. >> i want to say we are happy to remove that gutterand that downspout . maddie's office has stipulated in their letter to us that they would allow access for us to remove the encroachment. so if that's the only argument that encroaching we will do that. we just need to tie the downspout in to run the roof drains off into the super system. and i'm happy to work with her.

if we have to work through her , whoever i need to talk to to get this done i'm happy to do it. i just want to get things thin done and over with and completed . >> clerk: we will now hear from thedepartment of building inspection . >> joe duffy at dvi i'd just add i'm glad to hear they want to try to get it sorted out . dvi can help as well if needed but i'll try and appoint someone to help them with itif they need our help . i do think they're upset on either side, if they want to see the board of supervisor to help with all this but at the end of the day we all are trying to work together in the city on these issues and that

came on my radar about a week ago but there's nothing wrong with that contact at this point. >> clerk: thankyou, commissioners is this matter submitted ? >> president: commissioner lazarus, please go ahead. >> basically i don't want to touch this. i want to continue it and have the parties meet and confer and certainly with the presence of inspector duffy and come back to us with a resolution or potentially even the permit gets pulled and onethat's more appropriate getsissued . but thishouse just got too many wrinkles that i don't think we can sort out tonight . that'swhere i am . >> amazing advice asusual . >> i don't know about that . >> i would confer. i'll get to you in a second wreck. honestly i was prepared just to deny the permit or deny the appeal and let them work it out

but i think having them meet and giving us some time later for resolution would probably be the best idea and that's why we have that course. rick, go ahead. okay,commissioner lazarus . we will let you take the podium andmake your motion and ask everyone when the best time is . >> i'm going to make a motion to continue it but i would appreciate some input from the parties as to how long they think it might take and i don't thinkit should be very long . and also madame executive director any recommendations? >> we have space on our october 6 calendar but other than that it's going to have to be delayed probably till november because we have busy calendars. so mister coleman?

>> that's my concern because we are getting into the rainy season so i'd like to be able to move forward. i'm ready to resolve this thing now. i've never seen anybody have to submit drawings for a light rail being repaired. i used to be in the construction business for years and i got out of the business 30 years ago. >> we're just asking when you want it to continueto and you're saying you don't want it continued .>> i would like to have a hearing as soon as possible >> october 6 is our next availablehearing . >> that's fine for us . >> perfect. >> what about inspector duffy because he's a pretty key player, will he have time? >> inspector duffy had his hand upfirst for a quick second there . >> joe duffy, i was going to mention the rainy season as well. it's a matter of opinion this

can be done and ithappens all the time . i'm just hoping someone can be better at getting this work done. they can later on me and i'm happy to help out or give it to someone i think can. >> not to addmore work to your plate but if they aim to resolve this they could get the work done in advance and tell us a, we figure this out . >> they can't do the work when the permit is suspended but they can to get back to you on the october 6 thing that they've agreed on a path forward. ifit's only a matter of replacing some siding , i don't know what the plans are needed for. they may need just a set of plans between themselves but dvi does not need a book helping permit or a set of plans for removing and replacing siding. that would involve the parties. it's usually an agreement worked out between members of

theleague that caused damage to the property when they're working on it, on the roof, whatever they're doing . i can't remember the wordfor that now but it's usually a nice agreement between the property owners . when you got to paint your wall or it happens all the time. but it's similar to that. >> president: commissioner lazarus, i'll let you to continue with your motion. >> if they do reach a agreement and the permit issufficient is it still possible for them to withdrawthe appeal or does it have to come back ? maybe madame executive director . >> they can withdraw theappeal . >> i'm going to move to continue this item until october 6 with the expectation that the parties will meet and confer and attempt to resolve the remaining issues. >> on that motion to continueto

october 6, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] motion carries 5 to 0 on this matter. did you want to allow for furtherbriefing or any documents to besubmitted ? president honda . maybe a one-page statement. >> president: this is pretty simple and may rely on if they come to agreement. >> if the parties can submit a one-page statement double spaced by 3 pm on the friday prior to thehearing outlining their position >> president: thank you . moving on to item number six, appeal 21 068, department of building inspection, subject of property is 1560 lake street

appealing the issueand on july 13th , and alterations permit to comply with mlb 201-98-4482, revised roof framing only at stairway to fourth floor, relocate bathroom on first floor, add new gym room, reconfigure master bath and closet, and one powder room on second floor, remove proposed skylight on roof plan reference permit application 2019 01251296. permit number 201-911-0767 10. >> i am a partner in the project that has hired the law firm of rubin andjunior that appears before this body and will not have any effect on my decision . >> thank you and forthis particular case , the planning department has asked the party if scott sanchez could speak

first given his review of the situation out there at the property and it's my understanding the properties have agreed to this so we will hear from scott sanchez first and then from mister dratler and mister tunnet. >> the property of 1550 to 1552 lake street is located in our zoning district, barely compact lot 75 feet deep. these comments will focus on my review of the plans and the materials. unfortunately i didn't receive the appellant's work until last week but i reviewed it last night and there are numerous issues andconcerns raised about the plan . idid find and agree with some of the issues that were raised . i spoke with those parties

today and they were okay with me going first to explain to the board the issues with the permit that i couldfurther later if there were any questions . a couple issues unrelated to construction costs, that's for dvi to determine but one question was raised about storage count. permit that is three stories with no basement but there are clearly four levels on the plan. it'sa relatively minor error but some of the issues are a bit more consequential . i think the plans don't accurately show work at the rear fagade with regard to windows and doors not accurately showing work. that seems to have already been done. a creation of the door shown on the plans but a different location than what's on the plan compared to the photo that the appellant submitted. the appellant's raised concerns about the amount of interior demolition under the planning code. if you demolish 75 percent of

theinterior walls , the appellant's materials didn't have a lot of concrete information on this and the parties had to discuss this part but just before the hearing i spoke with deputy director duffy who showed me the mlb for this permit and it stated 80 percent of the interior frame was removed at eachlevel so that you section 312 notification . there's an issue regarding what is purported to the ... purported to be an interior connection between the third and fourth floors on an earlier plan set. it actually requires exterior work. it's this connection that penetrates through the attic at an angle up into this kind of funky penthouse like rear two rooms at the fourth level and that results in an extension of the building envelope that is inaccurately depicted in the

plans but that would require section 311. in total there are significant errors here at this permit doesn't accurately document work but it also discloses a 311 notice which was not performedbecause that was improperly indicated on the plans . i think i can briefly state that they discussed with both parties similar to the k-3 case that a remedy would be to grant the appeal, denied a permit and they can start over with the appropriate permits consolidating all of the work. there are other issues that were raised in the appellant's brief but they do issue more for dvi those are some of the initial findings i wanted to delay. everyone understands our issues with this permit and now there's more question for all parties to how to resolve that

and move forward so that's it, i'm available for questions. >> what a surprise, i have one. the permit slot, i saw that in the previews that this was going to be an issue. so your department's recommendation is that this permit be denied and for them to start from scratch. >> i don't see any other way around it. i don't know. i think that's the most straightforward path. another option essentially is if they have a way to revise theproject , there is no other way because if they remove more than 75percent of the interior wall undo that . >> 311 can't be undone though they would have to start that as the beginning first step. >> they would start over with a new permit inspeaking with humidity director duffy , they should consolidate, there's

potential issues with other half permits, they have three otherpermits on it . it's really to have a new consolidated permit that shows the entire scope of work here and supersedes those previous permits. >> i see your hand up rick but i think the best case is that both have allowed to speak first. maybe we can ask the appellant and permit holder if that's what they want to do becausei think at this point no matter what we hear , this case is more than likely the permit will be denied no matter what. >> the appellant may have things to add. >> vicepresident . >> our hands are tied.we can't doanything tonight . we've clearly disclosed that the legislatively, any which way we can't look atanything because already the laws have

been broken so our hands are tied . this is your position. >> your hands are tied in that the only thing we would say you can do is to that permit. >> that would be my next question and this really happens. >> i do know the parties, i wonder if mister drummond would like to address the board. >> i will ask the permit holder first. then theappellant second . given the testimony that was given by the planning department, what is your position at this point ? >> beginning with mister honda, i'm happy with the permit holder. we agree with the recommendation overall. and like to ask a question if i could for the record because

it's going to be an important issue going forward planning department staff did calculations of the interior demolition and found it to be below 75 percent. i didn't know if the zoning administrator had separately addressed this with department staff in addition to what the building department found in terms of demolition or where we stand with that. was the planningdepartment analysis incorrect ? >> analysis upon the figures that are stated on the plan that i think maybe we have a concern that if dvi made a finding that the present had been demolished that the plans show far less than that. then that's a concern. i think at the end of the day it needs the notice because of the stair. >> understood.

just in case it's important going forward and. >> sorry to interrupt you counselor but youcan address that . there's other things to be said on the building envelope which require . >> thank you. >> the same questions are.>> can you hear me? >> yes we can. >> i agree the permit permit should be revoked. my preferencewould be revoked the other two permits . the scope of the things that have happened here are just enormously profound. when you look at senior inspectors like micu's letter, he basically said the demolition was succeeded on everysingle floor . the other thing is the property owners had 11 complaints in

three years. the first complaint was in july 2018. that deals with the and ob. they've done nothing in 36 months to address it and the city leaned the property. the other thing, my biggest complaint is the scope of the illegal work has led to some real life safety issues. >> i'm sorry, are we going to haveyour presentation , we just ask thequestion . >> you for bringing my scope back. my concern is that we go beyond the current permit because i'm enormously concerned that all the illegal work has created a building with safety issues. how do we get those life safety issues addressed and how do we understand the condition of the

building before the entertainer plans. >> sorry to interrupt you mister dratler. as the department just said that they have issues with other permits on the property so this point, i believe it's the department's position and they can come in after that once we revoke this going to have to start fresh from the very beginningthere's not going to be , were going to let you keep the permit. so the question here really is to you for the department to start fresh because we're going to revoke this permit anyway, so did you want to go forward or would you be okay if we made a motion in advance right now? >> i would support the motion with the condition . >> i think we need to go in order here. the first answers went first. we're going to now here i

believe mister duffy, did you wantto weigh in on this ? going out of order here but i think we should. >> i apologize for doing that. i just said that because i felt likejust going in that direction anyway . >> i understand. i believe commissioner lazarus. >> go ahead, sorry about that. >> i just want to point out we have one permit andone permit onlybefore us . that's what the motion will be about . since we have gone out of orde , the parties agreed mister sanchez goesfirst. it would make sense to have mister duffy chime in now or mister dratler . >> that's what i asked if he was willingto go ahead and forgo , wherehaving the hearing questions . we know the amenable ending of

this that we would go ahead and vote on the fact of revoking this permit. and he says you would, he would like conditions on it but the department has already said there's other permits that will be addressed at the same time and i believe that you know, all that will be taken care of. >> but mister dratler did appeal the permit so weshould let him speak . he should have the time he was entitled to. >> i agree with everything that's been said. i justwant to express my concern about thecondition of the building . due to the unpermitted work . so the project licensed structural engineer has submitted false plans that

overstate the size of the building by1800 square feet . i don't necessarily believe that person is in a position to opine on the work. the other thing is the entire building has been re-clean. theroofline has been reclaimed. they've done unpermitted signs that work on that authorized . i doubt the rebar placement is inspected. i doubt there's been any plaque work on the strength of the concrete . you get a sense of we don't know what's here. so i agree what's before the court of appeals is a current permit but i would like some due diligence because i don't necessarily believe it's their to build on a building that has pretty significant safety issues. what i'd like them to do is to

bring in an independent licensed structural engineer. go through what's been done before they can entertain new plants. >> thank you. mister tunney. i'msorry, mister tunney did you have anything to add ? >> i do not accept the study that we will comply with any and all city and particular dvi building code requirements and making sure the new comprehensive permit complies with the code. whatever that entails and that likely does not require an independent structural engineer to come and assess the property but if we need structural engineers to review your plans and theproperty to make that

permit co-compliant we will do that . >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> this is joe duffy from dvi. i don't think i need to reenact any of the permit details for you but i do want to acknowledge that dvi did receivecomplaints. they did issue stop work orders back in 2019 . i agree with a lot of what mister dratler is asking for and i do think that we would deny a payment and this one has become anightmare recently . i would like us to go back again and do possibly an amended notice of violation with some of the requirements or issues mister dratler has raised vis-@-vis the structural work andany testing required . i do think he supplied concrete

as well. i noticed that in the brief so i do think dvi needs to revisit this with a full site inspection. look at everything and possibly file a new violation with a staff report and in question of the earlier permits that were taken out, those look like they got the kitchen remodel permit then another permit, then ended up causing a notice of violation. we do need to probably look at all those permits because i do think and i agree with mister sanchez and i did discuss it with him but a consolidation of all work, previous work that's been done, propose work they want to do that a full set of drawings with architectural structural mechanical type work. and just get one good permit and try to get this building finished and no probably have a long topic out of them but i think copy of work along with mister dratler as well and his

concerns and if those permits theygot earlier , i don't think they're worth the paper they're written on and i do think they probably need to be either canceled orneed to go away . >> we will now move on to public comment. i think there's one hand raise. the phone number ending in 0577. please go ahead. you may need to pressásix to unmute yourself. the phone number ending in 057 . please press star 6. we can hear you, go ahead. >> caller: this is stephanie, i live across the street from 1552, the building in question. i wanted to ask to meet my prepared remarks. i'm really glad that this

permit and that went on can be done. that's just the way they game the system. and also, they lied. they said when they did the first permit they said it was going to be 800, $8000. but dvi raised it to$157,000 . so i'm really glad they're going to get the new master permit and i think because they did game the system i don't really believethey're going to comply unless there watched very carefully. thank you very much . >> now is riley chen. please go ahead. riley chen. i see there's somebody who has their hand raise, probably

mister dratler's login,i'm not sure who that is but we will hear from the person . >> i'm using, can you hear me? i'm using my son's laptop. my name is jim riley. i'm glad the situation has changed. it's hopefully moving forward going to be done properly. i really don't see how an attorney can make the decision whether structural engineering is required. i think you need to completely, i don't understand why we keep having the same people representing thesecases from legal . it's like they'rerunning things . that building and just from on the street, i'm going to be looking at it. honestly how it got this far

with somebody, anybody at dpi not catching things going on back when they were wandering through the building is just absurd. and mister tunney's question about demolition. if you're going on to submit a plan, is there an absolute work of fiction. i've been in both units in that building over the last two or three years. what they show as existing conditions is nothing like what was there when we bought the property structurally, the wall is gone . bathroom is gone. the location of what they're saying is there that to me falls on to whoever the architect was. he put his stamp onit . and we keep getting subjected to these shady people doing business in san francisco and why are they held accountable

to ? so i am all for starting over. i know it's a big hassle but i'm concerned. we're not sure what you're going to get stuck with. if we're looking at fraudulent plans today, when are they going to start submitting brakes and when it does is the city going to hold them accountable for submitting fraudulent claims? i was under the impression you had to sign the bottom of a permit application that you test everything is true and accurateand on everything on those plans is not true and accurate . so start over, start from scratch. everybody involved has to be in the loop on this. thank you. >> we had one person under misterdratler's indication . as a reminder do not use the

chat for public comment. >> i am susan mccormick taylor, jerry sent me the link so i can join. i live directlyacross the street at 1600 lake . i think the biggest concern is this was a duplex two-bedroom, 2800 square feet and if you look through the plans, i'm a corporate attorney. you seethere's nothing accurate in anything they have submitted . what is my big concern? my big concern, thank you very much mister duffy. mister duffy helped grant an emergencypermit for our frontcourt . we inspected that there was a dry rot and in fact there was an incredible amount of work that had been done on our house and number dish and under our front porch. it was falling off the house. when the inspector finally came

when they took it apart said there was a risk ifwe had been sitting out there, we and our children what has been killed . that's the unpermitted work. thanks to mister duffy we showed him how it was cracking and falling off the house and we got anemergency permitand where in the middle of repairing it . my real concern is it's not a little bit of unpermitted work . they have gutted the foundation. they have taken off the whole back task with no permits they've doneincredible amounts . i think it's a real safety concern . i hear the commissioners, i understand one permit is in front of you but i would love for folks to take a look at the whole project and say how do we first make sure this thing is not going to falldown on the neighbors around us and second , let's rebuild it based on accurate facts that were presented so thank you very much.

>> clerk: we will now hear from brian yee. >> caller: i want to thank the committee for its time and i'm grateful for mister dratler's due diligence and everyone that'sinvolved with this.i live in 1544 lake street which is directly next to the property at hand . and i would say that i have three kids under six years old, 5 1/2, 3 and a half and a year and a half and i have nothing against the owners. they seem like lovely people but it's clear from what mister dratler and everyone said that it's an unsafe environment. over the past couple of years we've seen some troubling incidents including potential squatters that have been trying to break into the houses. my backyard isexposed to theirs so one could easily over the

fence into my backyard . i'd say during windy weather or storms there's a lot of debris that can kind of fly into the backyard. i'm not going to belabor the point and i'm grateful for your time but my vested interestis this building is completed in the right way . thank you. >> clerk: is there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i saw you put acomment in the chat. do you want to speak ? >> i don't see any hands raised so i'll close public comment and move onto remodel ifthat's necessary . mister dratler, you have 3 minutes . >> there's nothing more to be said. thank you for taking the time to hear this matter. >> mister tony, did you want to add anything?

>> just that the property owner is committed to keeping his property safe and finishing this project in a safe manner . and we will work cooperatively with dbi and planning to do that. >> thank you, mister sanchez. anything further? >> just briefly, there were a couple of comments in regards to concerns about the representation of existing conditions that were in the interior layout that have existed before. i'm not aware of much in terms of past interior floor plans that wouldallow us to kind of determine exactly what was there so if there are concerns about that , we don't have any information that prove their point about it not being represented correctly. i think you can email me but otherwise i think to go through the permitting process certainly for the exterior change and for the amount of

interior as was indicated in the dbi that it had issued. >> thank you. deputy directorduffy. anything further . >> thank you, joe duffy. just on i heard some comments about the condition of the building and we may need to look at whether temporary shoring etc. then we can do that pretty quickly from dbi if it's going to take a while to get a permit so i can absolutely follow up on that in thenext few days with the senior building inspector . thank you. >> commissioners, this matter issubmitted . >> i apologize for that the hearing started off a little, i thought we had a solution and then it was not the correct solution soi apologize .

what is before us, we have a couple options before us this evening. we can just vote the permit as several members of the public and the department suggested potentially. commend the mlb to a full site permit and a siteinspection and consolidation of past work . i would leave it up to anyone who would like to, they're shaking their head. >> commissioner lazarus. >> good advice from the city attorney but i believe the only thing in front of us is the one permit and it's pretty clear we need to revoke that. and then this is a little loose, just let the chips fall where they will based on everything elsethat's come to like . i think and i'm open to comment buti think that's our one option . >> i ultimately agree and i think that unfortunately to the public that's watching, the

department has to go off information that's given by the project sponsor. so unfortunately sometimes the errors don't come up until later whenmost have been proven to be bogus, to be honest with you . it is before building and planning at this point. i'm extremely confident that the departments now that is before them will make the correct decisions in correcting this and i see me my vp has his hand up. i'll mute. >> vice president. >> i'm a little slow, come on. i'm over 70, i get a couple of seconds. i would recommend that commissioner lazarus make the same motion she did on the earlier item that we had. >> if no othercommissioner has

any comments, commissioner chang ? he had his hand up when i said that. >> there were a lot of concerns and i heard from mister duffy on this. there seem to be a lot of concerns around safety. i agree with commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda that we should not revoke the permit. do something to address the safetyconcerns that we have . >> deputy director duffy has already said he would take a look at it just to make sure maybe there's some weathering and disclosure that he would accommodate. i think that's probably what the department will instruct. but without further review would commissionerlazarus likes to make a another motion this

evening ? >> i'm not going come in to monopolize the evening. >> i guess i'll make that motion. i'll make thatmotion so let's , what is it. let's go ahead and revoke the permit. >> on the basis that it does not comply with the building and planning code. okay. on president honda's motion, commissioner lopez.[roll call vote] >> thank you everybody, have a nice evening. >> good night. >> thank you.

>> chair: good afternoon, this meeting will come to the order welcome to the meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors .

i am supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by supervisor peskin and supervisor preston. the clerk is and become major and i'd like toacknowledge the staff and assistant tv covering and taking care of us during this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements ?>> clerk: the minutes will reflect community members participated inthis remote meeting through videoconference to the same extent as though they are physically present . the boardrecognizes public access community services and invites public participation in the following way. public comments will be available on each item on the agenda . either go to sfgov.org are streaming the public call in number across the street screen. two minutes to speak, opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling the number on the screen that number is 415-655-0001 . again, that number is 415-655-0001 .

the meeting id is2497 312 0703 . again, that meeting number is 2497 312 0703. then press pound, pound. once connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only . when your item of interest comes up please dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television or radio . alternatively you may submit public comment ineither of the following ways . you may transfer email the transportation clerk . if you submit public comment via email it will beforwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file .

comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall, room 244 san francisco california, 94102. finally items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of october 5unless otherwise stated . madam chair. >> chair: thank you so much. note item 1. >> clerk: item 1 is resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to rename donner avenue between arelious walker drive and west harney way located in public housing to charlie way. commenters should call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2497 312 0703.

then press pound, pound. if you have not done so already press star 3 to line up to speak. thesystem prompts will indicate you have raised your hand and are inconference . madam chair . >> chair: thank you madam clerk. we are joined by president walton for this item. welcomepresident walton would you like to make your opening remarks ? >> thank you chair melgar and my colleaguesupervisor preston . i'm here before you to honestly talk positively about the resolution that i put before the board along with cosponsor supervisor safai and we want to make sure that we get one step closer to renaming donner street to charlie way.

the name changes to honor charlie walker who was an icon in the bayview hunters point community similar to that name being synonymous with chinatown. you cannot talk aboutthe history of hunters point community without saying the name charlie walker . the lake people here called him the mayor of hunters point. being in business for six decades charlie has helped hundreds possibly thousands of young black men and women enter the fields of construction and small business. before california's jail realignment countless black men and women will return home to the bayview community unable to find employment becauseof their criminal records . no one would hire them but charlie walker. charlie walker tracking and construction company gladly employed formerly incarcerated individuals from the community and as he couldn't find ajob with his company he would

certainly find an employment with a different construction company or a different company .most of charlie's life in hunters point he was fighting for resources, fighting for civil rights while the city in some cases was intentionally reallocating resources to other parts of san francisco . when we talk about equity work there's that still needs to be done in the city charlie walker is one of the last civil rights witnesses can share with you how unfair the city has been to black people over the years because of fearless leaders likecharlie walker , shirley jones, willie kennedy , adam rogers and eloise westwood and so many others i am here in this seat as the first african-american male to serve as president of the board of supervisors representing district 10 which of course we all know includes hunters poin community. so today colleagues i'm honored to initiate this process .

he is now one of the last civil rights leaders that we have left here in hunters point and with that i just want to thank youfor this time this morning and look forward to a review of this item . you . >> chair: thank you president walton and thank you for bringing this item to the committee . i'm so glad we areconsidering it . colleagues, any questions for president walton? doesn't look like it so with that let's go to public commen . >> clerk: thank you madam chair. i just want to seeif we have any callers in the queue. if you have not done so already press star 3 to be added to the queue.please wait until the system indicates you have been undiluted . they have indicated we have 2 listenersin the queue . >> chair: seeing there is no

public comment public comment is closedfor this item . dowe have a motion to send this item with a positive recommendation out of committee ? >> so moved. >> chair: let's take role please. >> clerk: on amotion by supervisor preston, supervisor peskin >> aye . >> clerk: supervisorpreston . >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> chair: aye. that motion passes unanimously. thank you president walton. madam clerk will you please call item number two. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance submitting the planning code to allow neighborhood social service and philanthropic facility uses in the chinatown mixed-use district with conditional use authorization. change the provision of abandonment of a use that exceeds a use five maximum in chinatown mixed-use district,

change the use size limit and size maximum in chinatown, exempt institutional community uses and legacy businesslimits . members of the public who wish to provide public comment, the caller number on the screen is 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2497 312 070 . then press pound, pound. if you have not done so already press star 3 to line up to speed. thesystem will indicate you have lined up to speak .>> chair: we continue this item from last week for some amendmentsthat were introduced and we heard quite a bit of input from the community improviser peskin, do you have any further remarks you'd like to share with us ? >> thank you madam chair thank you for hearing this last week

and thank you to the community for which we heard widespread support particularly from any number of different interests and individuals and organizations in chinatown as well as porters and the other two areas that this legislation affects, hope street and north beach. as i indicated, that in additionto the amendments i made last week , there would be some further amendments that were being drafted by the city attorney in response to planning staff recommendations andtheir staff report . those have been circulated to you prior to thismeeting . the first would require that the planning commission find that a social service or philanthropic facility primarily serves the chinatown neighborhood . you can find those amendments that i'm offering today on page

3, lines 10 and 21 and page 2, lines 11 through 19 as well as making a technical protection to allow for the eligible use. established under circumstances. that change is in line 21 for 24. there are a number of purely rhetorical collections that are purely clerical and you can see those on page 3, the insertion of the word nonconforming within the space of more than. those are purely clerical in nature. i am having maybe a little disagreement with the city attorney as to whether these require a one-week continuance or not. i don't know if mrs. jensen wantsto weigh in on that . i don't think these are substantive but obviously i have no choicebut to confer to

legal counsel on the question . and if they are deemed to be substantive would request yet one more one-week continuance though i would like to subject to public comment move the aforementioned amendments. >> chair: thankyou supervisor peskin . is mister jensen on mark can you let us know whether they are they are substantive? they are consideredclinical . >> i defer to counsel. >> chair melgar, city attorney jensen and only two of the amendments areconsidered substantive . it's the one creating a new finding and the amendment at the bottom of page 1 which basically creates a new ability to revivean otherwise abandoned use size . that wright did not exist under the code before only goes to amendmentswhich we are considering to be substantive . >> chair: thank you very much city attorney jensen.

it sounds like we need to bring this back next week supervisor peskin. with that the you have any questions orcomments ? if not we will go to public comment. okay, let's go to public comments madam clerk. >> clerk: dv is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted. we have threelisteners and maria if you can on the caller . >> caller: lindachapman. first of all recognizing supervisor peskin is a master of land-use , most of this must be very beneficial . i still have some unanswered

questions and concerns and so on because i've seen the horrible unintended impacts on street in our commercial districtof past actions of the board of supervisors planning commission . so it sounds as if it is intended for a specific place, a specific business. i don't knowwhich one. maybe i wouldn't be concerned if i knew . certainly mergers for something like making a furniture store and antiquestore that need to make space and under conditional use , good idea. merging legacy business is probably not that. it sounds like it would be one of the bars for example. if it were made, what is and legacy business? they came along in that case and took over his face that havetheir own legacy restaurant . no question, it's a place we went after my mother's funeral service. the whole family from the west side and so forth but it was bought as the alu officers that many people were doing by

people who wanted to exploit the 47 licenses to turn them into bars. it wasturned into a horrible out-of-control entertainment business . based on a restaurant license and an entertainment approval for a piano bar, mind you. it was sodisruptive amongmany other businesses there that were disruptive that it ruined the entire district . that and the others together . and most recently a neighbors meeting and entire meeting was devoted to the complaints against mays by the neighboring bar owner that it was disrupting his business and the murder in the alleyand the totally out of control who went there and the badsecurity and all that . without the conditional use , would that be possible for them to be enlarged? >> clerk: that includes public

comment, madam chair. >> chair: with that public comment is now closed. we have a motion on the floor from supervisor peskin to amend the item so let's take role on that and then we will come back next week to vote on the entire item. madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion made by supervisor peskin to amend, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> chair: aye that motion passes and we will come back to this item next week . >> clerk: on the motion to continue as amended. >> chair: i didn't realize we needed a motion supervisor, you made that motion . >> so moved. >> clerk: on the motion by supervisor peskin to continue

to next week, supervisor peski . >>. >> chair: aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> chair: aye. thank you madam clerk. please call item number three. >> clerk: item 3 is an order amending the planning code to require use of inclusion in the housing street for a project within one quarter-mile of the boundaries of the district or anywhere in san francisco if not allocated withintwo years ofpayment , and affirming appropriate funding. members of the public who wish to provide public qaeda comment on item 3 , our number is 415-655-0001 and the meeting number is 2497 312 0703 and press pound, pound. if you have not done so press star 3 line up to speak.

>> chair: for this item we are joined by supervisor catherine stephanie from district 2. welcome to the committee and supervisor, the floor is yours. >> thank you supervisor's peskin and preston.before you today is a ordinance that would earmark $1.5 million for a 100 percent affordable housing project to be constructed within a .5 mile radius of the geary masonic special usage within two years of deposit into the citywide affordable housing fund and after two years the fund will be placed anywhere in the city. we're asking for an amendment so this legislation would expand the radius to 1.5 miles to include more of district 2 especially in the lombard area and ihave , i believeeverybody has that amendment . by way of background the geary

masonic special used district was adopted in 2016 to facilitate the redevelopment of the lucky penny restaurant which supervisor peskin referred to as the copper penny before it was the lucky penny and it was to allow a mixed-us development project with retail and housing including on-site below-market rate units . the special used district was amended in spring of 2020 to allow either inclusion of on-site below-market rate units or payment asan inclusionary housing the . and the developer has opted to pay the inclusionary housing fee. other comments then, it was said back then i committed to pursuing the legislation before you today to ensure that the inclusionary housing fee would be used for a project in close

proximity to the lucky penny project in district 2 so we could provide affordable units in district 2 as wellwe're in the midst of a housing crisis as everyone knows and that has been exacerbated by the pandemic . like some of you sitting on this committee i was disappointed . that the lucky penny project could not accommodate the inclusion of affordable housing units and we've been down that roadwhen we passed the amendment to the special usage back in 2020. despite labor shortages , skyrocketing cost of materials and other adverse conditions i am giving everything i can to make sure my district is pivotal to add units with affordable housing to its fair share to increase density and provide homes for working people and that's why i insisted on 186 units of affordable housing for low income seniors in the 3333 california project instead of the office space that was going to be in that project originally and i'm happy they successfully entitled that project back in 2019 . i did feel the need is all the more urgent after seeing the

california fair housing task force. identified mostof district 2 as i opportunity areas , one whose characteristics have been shown by to support positive economic educational and health outcomes for those low incomefamilies particularly long-term outcomes for children which of course is something i care deeply about . i believe this legislation will actually assist in actualizing those goals and i'm actively working with mohcd and we're working to createhousing for people of all income levels in district 2 . i've been working on this and speaking about this and the one area i'm thinking about with real legislative aide, it's something i really don't want to let go of. we have this opportunity to gain the sea to focus on d2 or within 1.5 hopefully miles of

the lucky penny project. so i will be asking you to spend the geographic area where the fee could be used from what is currently proposed to the .5 radius to 1.5. i know this includes the broader area adjusted to as i shared my office is committed to working closely with mohcd to find a location for it with 100 percent affordable project in my district. at this time i be happy to take any questions you may have on this legislation and get your thoughts. >> thank you very much supervisor stephanie, any questions orcomments for supervisor stephanie ? supervisor preston . >> thank you supervisor stephanie for your work on this. and i appreciate it . i thank you for that amendment that you circulated around. i think it's great that we'll have a little more of a cushion

in the two years that was originally there and hopefully i believe that's getting amended to five years to dedicate those funds more locally before they would revert to general funds if i'm including that right. and just a couple of things, one is i think in the amendmen , just a technical thing. i think the change from a quarter-mile radius to 1 and a half miles, i think that also needs to be made ina second sentence .so it's right now in the draft we got you made that change on what is it, piece three, line 1 but it also needs to be in the sentence that follows references one quarter-mile of the boundaries i think we should include in your amendment to make that the same one and a half miles of friendly amendment suggestion there. and then i also would say more generally on this aside from

the fact that i'm still sort of lamenting the loss of the luck penny . we're alltrying to get over that . but that aside, i just feel i know this has come up in other contexts around the past on what is the appropriate when you're trying to target affordable housing near a site where someone does the and payments, what's the appropriate amount ? sometimes trying to have a smallercircle more like what you had proposed around a quarter of a mile .i am fully prepared to support you in your efforts in getting this housing in d2 whatever you think is appropriate and that's one of the half miles from the site so i have no issue whatsoever extending that i do for the record want to say that i think this is a fairly unique site. supervisor stephanie talk about the history of the site, the sort of second or now third

round of ordinances to try to get this site right and get the fundsused and activated for affordable housing . i want to make clear as one third of this committee that i generally wouldn't look very, would not view this as a precedent and would look fairly skeptically at efforts to define and i don't want it to become a default of a mile and a half from the site. that is not a statement whatsoever on supervisor stephanie's efforts here and i assume that is guided by potential sites within her district that she wants to make sure can still be on the table so i would absolutely differ that and support that but i did want to note this comes up in other contexts as well and we also all know from our different districts sometimes a mile and a half can be, can include an area that has quite a bit of affordable housing and areas that have absolutely not. so generally we try to narrow

that circle, constrained that circle as opposed to created but anyway, those are more comments generally on thisissue than the district . i do have as a supervisor stephanie i think i wrote around the other to online 2 about the third cage, let me knowif you want to include that . >> would you like to make the motion to amend this item as you just stated? >> i do think you're correct, i think that that first to the one quarter-mile in the next sentence needs to be one and a half. i think you're technically correct. >> is that okay supervisor stephanie? >> of course, that was probably something that was missed by when it was drafted. course, thank you for pointing

that out. >> not to anybody under the bus, supervisor. >> we can vote after public comment. did you have any further comments supervisor? >> no. >> chair: i will say supervisor stephanie, the supervisor for district that also has fairly low density that i really commend you and how tenacious you've been in your efforts in following this project for the many years. it's been on the table .since we lost the yummy grilled cheese sandwiches at thelucky penny . and this is a unique site as supervisor preston talked about . it is at the top of a very busy commercial corridor and you stop with it and insisted on

housing and density for this site that brings something fairly new to your district so i appreciate your efforts. and with that i think madam clerkthat we can take public comment >> . >> clerk: dp is seeing if we have any callers in the queue. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the queue.please wait until the systemindicates you have been under muted . i see we have no callers in fe . >> chair: then public comment onthis item is now closed . uber visor preston. >> i thought it was part of the amendment. maybe not. supervisor stephanie through the chair, just wanted to make sure the issue of the 2 years

that the legislation as drafted had the fund targeted to the mile and a half and if the first two years is not used and we're reverting to citywide and the latest version had five years. i just want to confirm that because it's not inthe market . is that part of what you're saying ? >> since we changed this i do have a copy here on page 3, lines three and four where it says within one quarter-mile which, that's what we're changing too. of the boundaries within five years of the project. >> that's part of the amendment, thank you so much. >> thank you for making sure aboutthat . >> that, supervisorpreston . >> supervisor stephanie submitted along with a change

of page 3, line 2 changing one quarter-mile to one and a half. >> chair: madam clerk, please call the roll on this amendmen . >> supervisor peskin. supervisor preston supervisor melgar .>> chair: aye thank you madam clerk. do we havea motion to adopt the item ? out of committee with apositive recommendation as amended ? >> so moved. >> chair: please call the role. >> clerk: supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar.

that motion passes unanimously. thankyou supervisor stephanie . >> have a great day. >> please call item number four. >> commissioner: >> clerk: item number four amends of the planning code to designate 396 february 3, 1998 12th street a.k.a. san francisco bar as alandmark consistent with the standards put forth in article 10 of the planning code . members of the public who wish to provide public comments on item number four call the number on the screen. that number is415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2497 312 0703 . and press pound and pound again. if you've not done so already press star 3 to line up to speak. the system will indicate you

have moved to speak. >> chair: today is visit the land use committee day by our colleague. i think we have supervisor matt haney here with us or perhaps hisrepresentative. do we have , we are. hello, miss mahogany is with us fromsupervisor katie's office, welcome . >> good afternoon, thank you so much for having us and for hearing this item today. my name is honey and i am here to speak on behalf of supervisor haney who introduced this legislation introducing landmark designation for the eagle bar which is a historic life institution located in our district and within that letter stonewall district.i will say it feels fortuitous we are having this hearing today which is the day after the return of negative which was the original name of the fulton street fair which we, we proclaimed this

year and it just took place yesterday and the eagle was again a central part of the celebrations of fulton street. i know we've spoken on this item previously when it first came to the board a few months ago so i'll keep my remarks relatively brief but i did want to do provide this item with the respective background so please bear with me. the eagle first opened its doors at its current location in february 1981 at the corner of 12thand harrison and has been operating there for over 40 years . the folsom and harrison corridors provide an area known as the miracle milewhich counted nearly 30 different gay businesses including letter bars, clubs , shops and bathhouses in the 70s and 80s. the eagle is currently one of the few leather bars left in thisarea and holds much significance to the lgbt to amenity and the history of the

city . it is imperative to supervisor haney we acknowledge its significance and endeavor to prevent this rich history from being erased due to destabilizing pressures of gentrification and development. you've received dozens of letters from our district residents extolling the profound importance of the eagle and to them and it's san francisco's queer community and a tradition that was circulated by the eagle received over 1500 signatures insupport of the landmark effort . the san francisco eagle is a cornerstone of our leather lgbt cute district and an important cultural institution and humidity anchor that deserves all the protections and privileges the city can provide . if the sf eagle achieves landmark status it will be the seventh lgbtq site site is a friend landmark in the city. thanks for supporting the

initiation of this process. and the leather lgbtq cultural district and for an owner and steward of the eagle, the historians have documented the history of san francisco including but not limited to the l rubin, shane watson, donna graves and the sf city planners especially alex westhoff who worked so hard to pull the forthcoming presentation together and thank you to chair melgar and the committee membersfor your consideration of this destination . >> chair: thank you for the thoroughness of your presentation. i'm amazed . this is the first in the soma. thank you to supervisor haney for bringing it forward. we have francis mcmillan who will weigh forth on thisitem. >> i have a presentation .

>> we have granted you presenter status if you want to bring it up ... >> can you see my screen? i'm sorry. >> chair: we can see it. >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors and planning department staff. i'mpresenting historic preservation commissions designation for the eagle bar as an article 10 landmark . we recommended designation from 19 to 21. that report was prepared at senior planner westhoff's office. the eagle bar was established in its current location at 12th

street. it is significant for its association with the lgbtq committee of san francisco's longest running leather bar and over the course of four decades the eagle has served as a community center for self markets lgbtq community posting events includingcharitable fundraisers , live music and comedy, political and social organizingand more . it's designated the eagle 107 san francisco landmark properties associated with its lgbtq history. the eagle opened just before the onset of the aids epidemic and through the 80s and 90s they lost 22 staff members to eight. during the early days response to aids was lacking and the san francisco model established support and compassion for community groups to care for people with aids. the eagle became a center for fundraising activities

including several recurring events which continue today including weekly fundraiser bus and the annual bare chest calendar. collectively these events raise millions of dollars for age-related charities as well as others such as suicide prevention breast cancer and homelessness. it is significant for its association with market fernandez, chair compton. all of whom played prominent roles in the development of the eagle as well as the letter and lgbtq seen locallyand internationally . the. ofsignificance is 1981 to 2020 . determine the san francisco eagle bar meet eligibility requirements and status as warranted . the departmentrecommends landmarkdesignation . i'm happy to answer any questions . >> chair: thank you miss mcmillan for that presentation. colleagues, dowe have any questions for miss mcmillan ?

okay then, let's take public commentsmadam clerk . >> clerk: we are seeing if we have any colors in thequeue . if you have not done so already press star 3 to be added to the queue. please wait until the system indicates you have been under muted . we have five listeners. if you can unmute the first color please . >> caller: i think it hurtsthe moral fiber of the city . [inaudible] >> clerk: [inaudible] let's

hear from thecaller . >> caller: my name is larry santiago, owner of the eagle bar. i want to thank the committee and boardof supervisors for this consideration . there are so many words i would like to express in such little time but however i just wanted to consider this designation because the san francisco eagle has been in a unique position and place of community for many years and we look forward to the next 20 years so i'm looking forward to having everybody from all over the world over here and we will continue our mission of being a community space for everybody in every corner of our community.

thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: linda chapman. i say good idea. lgbtq landmarks have been designated now in various parts of the city and i mentioned i just returned from a demonstration in front of the lgbtq business, the legacy business in our district in paul at 1520 nine. the demonstrators were out there todemolish this business . when i came to, even before i came to live on mount hill in the 1960s i use to take the polk bus up to galileo and i was floored by the gorgeous neighborhood commercial district, the most beautiful i

ever saw. i didn't realize at the time it was a lgbtq district before polk street and when i did live here i thought you are so lucky and we would go to the state which was a lgbtq mecca but also the one where the other neighborhood peoplecould go like the ladies did not really go into the gay bar . now it's to be demolished. why? because the people who bought it, a development company decided they would manage to eliminate it by going around to lgbtq rooms and claiming that it was feasible to operate a restaurant there . this is ridiculous, you know. i've heard their wholestring of allies at the neighborhood meetings and planning commission . there's a 50 percent base their that's completely unused except for a carand of the end where they could expand therestaurant if theywanted . they could , they were already very successful beforethe

shutdown . there is absolutely no reason why this cannot be landmarked . backbefore 1915 , already there was the antique lunch car that was incorporated into the grub state together with now dining room addedin the 70s . >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. we have one more color in two. keep in mind to keep your comments to theitem on the agenda . thank you so much . >> caller: how are you doing? my name is daniel howardperez . and i come up from los angeles. i'm part of the letter community in los angeles and vice chair of the los angeles leather coalition and i support the measure making this and official landmark.

i've been coming here for the greater portion of like 30 years and i have seen the changes especially recently with how the eagle has been an epicenter for the leather community and i feel that as an out-of-town or that comes in and comes to san francisco to relish in the community that i here , it is really important for me to see that this is a designated landmark and people from all over the world come here to visit and it is, it is truly appreciated and it is what i would say a prototype to what other cities shouldfollow . and i am really happy to be voicing my opinion. thank you very much.

>> clerk: i think that was the last caller into you, madam chair. >> chair: public comment for thisitem is now closed . can we have a motion colleagues to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> chair: madam clerk, call the role. >> clerk: motion by supervisor peskin to recommend the item supervisor peskin .>> aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> chair: aye. the motion passes unanimously please call item number five . >> clerk: item 5 is a hearing

on reinforcement activity policy and programming studies. they're requesting the office of short-term rentaland enforcement, planning department and rents board to report. members who wish to provide public comment call the item number on the screen . that is 415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 2497 312 0703 . then press pound, pound. if you have not done so already rests star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt willindicate you have raised your hand . >> chair: supervisor peskin thank you for calling this important hearing. will you make remarks before we call up the presenter. >> thank you to the planning department for preparing this

hearing . these are two important pieces of public policy that short-term rental piece of the public policy was the result of some rather contentious legislation that then supervisor david compos was the chief operator that i cosponsored and passed in 2016. that resulted in litigation from airbnb and others that was settled in 2017 that led to the current scheme and i think the last time the board checked in on the status of that legislation was at the beginning of 2018 so i think we aredue for an update on that . and in the interim we passed intermediately occupancy legislation. commonly known as corporate rental legislation which i wanted to hear about but even

the pandemic and the dearth of information andexit time , that vote made it what i wanted to do was here briefly about the status of where the intermediate occupancy members and information are at and continue the hearing to a later date when planning and the rents board already. so maybe we can hear some seminary information on ils and the meat will be short-term rentals and they do have a powerpoint presentation which is really an update of the 2018 presentation so with that i'll turn it over back to you but i think we need to hear on ilo's from planning and briefly from the rents board and get into the meat of the matter on short-term rentals. >> chair: thank you supervisor peskin . we have sent us here who

manages the short-term rental department at san francisco planning and also our administrator. after we hear from them we will also hear from robert collins, chief executive director of th rents board . so now corey, i will turn it over to you for your presentation .>> thank you chair.i'm 40 representing the planning department. thank you for having us here today to discuss the intermediate length occupancy controls or ilo'sand the city's short-term rental program . as was discussed i'm going to be brief and give an overview of the ilo program today and the planningdepartment and i think a little bit out of order there , give the board colleagues a chance to touch on what they're doing related to

ilo's and that ordinance and as was mentioned the presentation will focus on the city's short-term rental program which was given by diego sanchez. moving on to the ilo program i will provide a detailed overview of the specific parameters but i'm happy to answer any specific questions, and i encourage anyone learning more about the program and specific details to visit the ilo page on the planning departments website. it's a great resource for all that information . the controls were adopted last year in 2020 in two parts, one being planning code and the other being amendments to the rent ordinance so the former designation in the planning code is a residential use characteristic that applies to the dwelling unit offered by occupancy to a natural person

for any initial state of greater than 30 consecutive days, that's less than one year and the ilo program sets the maximum units to be permitted in the city within existing buildings or those buildings that the permit is issued prior to july 2020 and eligible units within such buildings have 2 years through june of next year to file for such applications and after that date to the extent that the 1000 limit is not meant , units may be approved new projects going forward. today the department has received fewer than 10 applications representing less than 100 dwelling units which is likely due to the two-year application period afforded to the program was the impact of covid over the past year so i suspect we will see more applications coming in the door between now and next june and when applications move forward and ilo'sreceived final approval they are required to submit monitoring reports regarding the nature and context of how those units are

used on the property . butthis typically to the previous calendar year so considering the lag in preventing , it's likely no significant monitoring data would be available for emitted until march 2023 at the earliest so once there is more robust data on those approved ilo's and how their operating department would be happy to attend a future hearing to discuss that in further detail . from an enforcement perspective regarding ilo's the department has received 10 ilo related complaints and four of those foreclosed due to no violation andthe six remaining are still under review . just a very quick update on the program from running department side and again i'm happy to provide more information and more data and information is available but now i would just specifically, we can pass it over to our rents board to give their update beforewe move on to the short-term rental review . >> thank you corey.good

afternoon chair melgar, supervisors preston and peskin. i'm director of the rents boar . thank you forinviting us to appear before you .with you today we also have the stena partner whose our deputy director and julie cumis is ou senior administrative law judge . christina will be making a recommendation on behalf of the rents board and senior administrator joey and myself will be available for any questions that may come up so quick that i'll turn it over to youchristina if you would . >> good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors preston and peskin. i'm deputy director of the rents board, thank you for inviting us here today. just as an introduction i like

to get the committee in brief summary of the amendments to san francisco's rent control ordinance that were part of the boards intermediate length occupancy or ilo. i wanted to update this committee on the terms included in the rent ordinance in regards to the ilo ordinance . firstly the rent ordinance was amended to state there is a prohibition on six term rental agreements and that no lease or rental agreement provision that requires a tenant to vacate a rental unit at the expiration of a specific term is valid nor does the landlord have a just cause to detect if the tenant fails to vacate the end of this fixed term. this language was declarative of existing law is the rent ordinance as required just cause to terminatedependency in the expiration of a fixed term lease has never been a just cause regardless of what a tenant might agree to in a lease . in addition the ilo ordinance added section 37.9 f to our ordinance titled circumvention of tenant protections.this

section was intended to help her rentals by prohibiting non-tenant uses of rent-controlled property so for example renting a unit to a corporate entity or other non-natural person or using a unit as housing for one's employees or licensees. the ordinance goes on to provide any agreement that purports to allow the unit to be used for unauthorized non-tenants use is void as contrary to public policy and that the occupants will instead be deemed tenantsunder the ordinance with all the rights and protections of a rent-controlled tenant . the section ensures all occupants in rent-controlled units have the right to long-term occupancy regardless of what's written in the lease or whether the unitwas advertised as a corporate rental. finally a new requirement was added to the rent ordinance

specifically related to disclosures that must appear on rental listings . this typically the ilo ordinance requires all online listings must indicate the listed unit is subject to the san franciscorent ordinance limits evictions without just cause and which states any waiver by a tenant of their rights under the rent ordinance is void as being contrary to public policy . with regards to your first question supervisors , what is the rents board's current role in enforcing this provision on fixed term rentals in san francisco, the rents board has various remedies available to tenants who have entered intermediate lengthreleases . these include reports of alleged wrongful conviction, decrease in housing services, unlawful rent increase petitions and other conditions which tenants can accessand be afforded their rights under the rent ordinance . i tenants could file a report of alleged wrongful conviction indicating they have received

notice with no permitted just cause listed . our staff would conduct an investigationwhich would include contacting the landlord . many times this process yields the result it seeks to achieve when the landlord sees it there unlawful behavior. i will enroll in enforcing the ordinance also includes potentialpublic education . staff include information about the ilo ordinance in counseling about the public and we will be including it as we extend our community outreachthis year . importantly the nonprofit tenants rights organization made action for violation of ordinance action 37.9 and the city attorney may also file the suit in courtagainst a party who has not complied with 37.9 f . you also had an additional question about how many complaints the rents board has responded to since the corporate rental legislation took effect and more explicitly emphasizesprohibition

thank you for your question . since the legislation took affect the rents board has received one complaint specific to the legislation. the complainant inquestion was related to what is now rent ordinance section 37.9 f little b . this section is related to disclosures that must appear on rental listings including rental listings but more predominantly indicating the listed unit is subject to the san francisco rent ordinance which limits evictions without just causeand which states any waiver by a tenant of their rights under the rent ordinance is void as being contrary to publicpolicy . that complaint was resolved as the landlord corrected their violation immediately upon receipt of notification of their violation . thank you. >>thank you .

>> thank you very much ms. garner. were we going to have another presentation by mister sanchez about the short-term rental? >> i want to check.that was the end of the presentation regarding ilo. i don't know if you would prefer to pause therefore any questions specifically or move on to mistersanchez . >> chair: supervisor peskin has a burning question. >> what would be helpful is given the dearth of applications albeit everybody still has time under the 20/20 law and we did have covid in the intervening period, it would be helpful if you could explain for us and anybody watchingwhat the application process consists of ? isthere a template for an application ? how has the ilo world been notified of this? obviously a huge amount of

interest when this legislation was passed by the board of supervisors and corporate rental companies from literally around the country weighed in presumably they are knowledgeable. the apartment association weighedin . many others. is there an application proces ? where can somebody find? i think that would be a good way to conclude this segment of the hearing. >> absolutely. so the ordinance didn't create any new or special type of approval process for application . it basically clarified that for certain types of projects generally in buildings that have less than 10units , the only thing required is the building permit to establish this residential use to respect in association with an existing dwelling unit and for buildings that are 10 units are larger it's required a conditional use authorization, just a standard

like any other process. so we did again build out our webpage on the website which kind of details that specifically in terms of what the process is. ifyou want to establish one or more on your property , there's also a number of exemptions and prohibitions in terms of what kind of property either does not require approval or are prohibited from establishing ilo and all that information is also on our website so if you go to sfplanning.org andpull up ilo it should be easy tofind that information . you are correct . the original ordinance has a six-month window for the planning department to basically build up a website and provide this information to folks and in that time we did receive information from

various community stakeholders who were interested in that information and when the website went live we posted that out to the stakeholders that we were aware of and have received some questions and correspondence from different groups. we were applied to those but there hasn't been a lot of communication and as stated has been a lot of applications yet todate . >> butthere is an application for because there were three buckets if my memory serves me . >> there is anactual application form that presumably i will find that , thank you for letting us know on the planning departments website but there is an actual application form for legalization. >> there is not a specific application for ilo because there's no special process that wascreated for them. it's the same process we would use to establish any residential use characteristic

. if you are a smaller project it's just the filing building permit application to establish that characteristic and we call that out as required process on the website and if it's a larger building of 10 or more units the process it's simply file and it can be specific to whatyour proposal is whether establishing one or more ilo's . there's not a lot more detail to it other than that and not a lot more information is required on the funding for the applicationpursuant to the amendments that were adopted lastyear . >> i'm looking at your webpage now . thank you for that and i look forward to continuing this and we will do a little off-line visiting between my office and your office in the interim when you're ready to present on this we will get to that and madam chair,i'm happy to move on to short-term rentals and mister sanchez . >> chair: thank yousupervisor peskin .i had questions about this being the hospitality

industry basically has been planning during the pandemic, it'sintermediate-term and even for a little long-term rentals . i don't know if we have anydata to compare it to . and i am really interested in seeing whether or not we got it right and whether we need to regulatefurther , but you know, i don't know if you guys kept data before this legislation about the long-term intermediate rental. >> the shortanswer is no because intermediate length occupancy was not a defined or regulated category . i think that was part of the challenge in the legislative process is that it's hard to know what that universe is of course you would expectit's a

universe that fluctuates over time. just by the nature of what it is as well . and the many different reasons why there may be units from the specific corporate rental of ilo's to the more mom and pop and everything in between the short answer is no,we don't have a lot of information . unfortunately even when we get to the end of the two-year filing period going to have a certain number of properties and buildings and units we are going to be aware of but there's still going to be a non-universe that either stopped operating as ilo's or are continuing to operate but not going through the process and it's hard to know that it's it's based on the leasing arrangement whichis not super tangible and maybe easy to understand from the outside world . there will always be some challenge to understand fully the universe that exists for ilo's but we will continue to implement the program and get as much implementation as we can goingforward . >> chair: i was going to say

that it would help for this and every other category if we had a vice chair. >> obviously we will go through that in short-term rentals and is my recollection serves me from a coupleyears back , the budget and the legislative analyst did prepare a report and did have some baseline information certainly as to the larger ilo's. some of theuniverse is indeed met . >> there was a report able to identify a certain universe and i think also address the level of uncertainty that existed as well and to the point we are making that the change that has happened since that time i'm sure it's a bit challengingto know what extent universe is still intact . >> presumably we will come roaring back at some point.

>> and we willbe ready because we have these systems set up . you. mister sanchez. welcome. you are on mute, mister sanche . >> let me know when i can see the screen and i'll start the presentation. >> chair: did you have somethingyou want to get into ? >> there's two ways of doing this and it may be more helpful if along the way because i pulled up to january 2018 slide deck and have questions that probably would be best if we did that in real time rather than waiting until the end when diego, mister sanchez is on those particular slides but if you want i can wait until the end. that would bemore productive if

we did them along the way . >> chair: do you want to raise yourhand when we have questions ? that'sfine by me . >> perfect. >> just use the chat. go ahead mister sanchez. >> let me know when you see th shared slides and i'll go ahead and start and ask away . can you see it now?okay, great. thank you very muchsupervisor . with me i also have a few team members from the ost are, erika jackson and peter burke. i would like to break the discussion up intothree parts. the first would be to provide a program overview . we can discuss theregulatory history as well as staffing and

budget . the second portion we talked about the programs functions and enforcement andcompliance and last i want to talk about the committee response to the program to date so let's talk about program overview . ask some background principle regulations are in an administrative code chapter 41 a . these regulations became effectivefebruary 1 . these regulations essentially allow permanent residents orlando homes for guests stays up 39 these regulations prohibit the conversion of residential units to tourist uses. the primary requirements for activity include the following. filing an application with the ost are, residing in the same dwelling unit 270 nights a year. a valid registration certificate from the tax collector and having a property and dwelling unit consistent with code enforcement actions.

there are no limits on guests stays and these are the instances when the host and guest are in the dwelling unit for the same number of nights. there is however a limit on whole home or on hosted guests stays needed to 99 per year. this is aninstance where the gas has complete access to the property or i should say to the dwelling unit and the host is not within the dwelling unit . you want tomake a note affordable housing units are ineligible to participate as they are nonresidential and non-habitable spaces . supervisors in 2016 the originalshort-term rental was amended requiring hosting platforms to ensure all hosts are properly registered . in september of that year airbnb filed today in federal court. all parties found themselves in mediation in federal court from january to april 2017. as a result of that deviation

came a settlementagreement in may 2017 . thesettlement agreement provides further regulatory guidance . >> it's worth mentioning that part of that august 2016 legislation also held platforms as compared to folks accountable for fines and enforcement. >> yes, that's right. as part of the settlement agreement for hosting platforms must inform us of registration requirements, cannot allow bookings for non-ost are registered host and must provide ostare with rosters with short-term rental listings on the site and must provide sgr with monthly affidavits as compliance . oh sgr must provide applicants with fundingapplications to host guests and provide an appeals process for denied

applications . supervisors, as a result of the settlement agreement osgr has seen that platforms provided increased response in data sharing creating a fair playing field for noncompliant hosts for issues such asnon-residency which would be the host not living in the same unit . unit habitability which would include posting guests in garages orwarehouses or sheds or the use of fake registration numbers supervisors , as part of that cooperation or as referred to that cooperation of the settlement agreement, airbnb has created the city portal tool that osgr usesin enforcement and compliance action .we have a screenshot of whatthat looks like on the slide . you'll see there is a search box in the middle of thescreen . that's where osgr staff could drop in an address or street or property of interest and search

the airbnb's roster of listings and you can see we typed in geary, not even street or boulevardand up came a few hits . if we had interest in the middle property we could click the listing id link. we would be able to take a look at the listing, the images, the description and potential guest reviews and this is all used in application reviewand enforcement . i'll get into those little bit more detail but just for now i wanted to show you all the fruits of the settlement agreement . so let's talk about staffing and budgeting. this is all being administered by the osgr in the planning department. when fully staffed there's a director, to senior planners, three senior analysts and one enter technician. right now we have six of those seven, we're missing one senior analyst. i want to make note we had to

senior analysts return in 2021 from an extended segment . these assignments were 12 months or longer and so we want to definitely thank them for their service to the city and also thank them for coming back to the osgr. supervisor senior planners were primarily on the application review enforcement and compliance functions. while thetechnician works on responses to public inquiries and on application processing. we are doing this on a budget of approximately $1.358 million . now i want to give it to the programfunctions which began our application review . >> chair: supervisor peskin had a question about the last slid . >> those six out of seven, of those full-time equivalent positions or part-time to you and others? is that all 100percent sgr or how does that work ? >> that's 100 percent fte towards functions.

>> got it. and then this was originally housedin the city administrator's office a while ago . when did that transition to planning and how does that work and why did ittransition out of the city administrator into planning ? >> we transitioned back if i understand correctly in 2019 i believe. not 100 percent sure as to why it was switched back from planning but it came back to the planning department in the middle of 2019 if i'm not mistaken . >> one housecleaning issue. i assume if folks get a permit to operate a short-term rental, that can be found on the property information map of the planning department. >> i believe that's the case. there is a link in the property information map that there's

short-term rental activity occurring of that property. >> out of that $1.35 million budget, i assume that is all funded through cost recovery via the permit fees for permitting as well as what you recoup from enforcement and funds. >> the revenue streams are just application feesand fines . currently applications do not cover cost recovery 100 percent. >> i'm drawing on the exact fraction i can definitely get some budget folks here for you if you're interested in those figures. but myunderstanding is the application fees , only the penalties cover everything. >> it would be nice to know in this hearing or subsequently what additional general funds subsidy the program cost that

are not recouped by fees . >> definitely i can get that information for you . >> okay. so i'm going to go ahead and speakabout the program function . for those application reviewand enforcement . since inception

>> these individuals were received and approved application andhave a certificate or 2 years . we have approximately 600 pending applications . we mentioned in the settlement agreement allows short-term rental host to conduct a short-term rental activity while the application is pending . there's another subset of applications that are canceled applications that may be the difference in the numbers that you're calculating . i can get you those figures and dropthem in the chat .

>> chair: what arecanceled applications ? >> canceled applications are when a certificate expires . so it's two years and if they choose no action we will just call that canceledor expired . >> sorry. if you can just see, where not allowed to putanything in the chat . >> i will email it to the supervisor. definitely. >> just doing the math which is overtime there's been 8330 applications. and then 2340 of those were denied. and 3080 werewithdrawn . which would just based on my bad math is 2910 remaining. that means that 1300 would have had to be canceled.

>> let me get thosenumbers for you, let me pull them up . we ran the numbers a few times obviously . let me make sure everything is running. >> out of curiosity when somebody has a2 year permit , then it's coming up for renewa , does the apartment send out a notice or it's up to the folks who are doing it to raise the number? >> we send out a 30 day reminders in the certificate will expire in 30 days and we say your certificate will expire, there are a couple of paths you can take if you'd like to renew it,this is the path and if not then you don't necessarily need to take an action .

you can say we're not going to do anymore andthat will change the status on the 31st for example . >> mister sanchez, this is not a massive discrepancy but it is a discrepancy which is the report that you guys gave us in january 2018 which had 4 years of applications for 2015, 16 and 17. they are different than the ones that you have april 20, 2015, 16 and 17. like in 2017 you have 1365 and it will be presented to the committee three years ago, it has 1256. that's not a huge difference but it's a difference. it would be nice to get to the bottom of that . >> that definitely is part of the work program going forward. one of the facts we have is to improve the integrity ofour bases . chair off the top of my head just probably this is a result

of us switching from one database used by the city administrator to the appellate system that used by the planning department and we're still continually ongoing cleaning the different cases to rectify what actually happened with each case so that my initial guess would be that that's what part of the reason why there's a discrepancy. >> is also interesting because in 2018 so really for the period ending 2018 there was a total of almost 2200 registered posts. that's a pretty significant drop. again, that may be attributable to covid but it stillseems like that's a big chunk . >> definitely that's a part of it and by more than happy to look intothe data integrity. but i do think we did have quite a few withdrawals

in 2019 again in 2020 as well . i'm more than happy to look into the discrepancies between the 2018 slides and the. >> and then insofar as the deal that we have now which the board of supervisors could change which is that from the moment that one applies, even before a permit is issued, if that application goes through for the passenger system through the platform area to be or whatever to youguys , they can operate given the dearth of planning staff in 2020 it would seem that a lot of applications were not processed in those folks got to legally operate for a while before youguys got back to work and started denying some of those applications, is that a fair assessment ?

>> that is a fair assessment . there was a backlogdefinitely applications that have not been reviewed that were pending applications . i do want to say that since october 2020, it's been a priority for us to get to application backlogs. it's that time we've managed to get to the applications submitted in 2017 and 2018. we have about 50 applications left in 2013 and we're working through the application backlog as well for 2020. >> that was a big issue i saw on my entering office of individuals essentially paying a certificate gone for two years but getting the privilege to conduct activities for more than that.>> even at this point as we near the end of 2021 you still have some outstanding ones from 2018.

>> 2019. >> wecompleted a review of 2017 and 28 teams . we did a few 20 19th left and weanticipate completing those inthe next three months . and we will down to 2020 quite a bit . in doing this year. so it's important to note that we've been hustlingnow that we are fully staffed to get the backlogs . we consider this not only great customer service but also part of enforcement that you're getting at and that'ssomething i'll be getting at in the presentation definitely . i also want to make a note that we're also juggling a backlog of almost 100 appeals of our denials. so we have to get through review of the appeal of the denial submitted by an applicant . there was a lot of work done in 2020 and 2021 to get to where we are right now.

>> i understand that the shortage of staff in 2020 is any hindrance. but it's also at the same time clearly the graph shows that the number of applications dropped precipitously in 2021 which you would think even with two fault being on the new work at disaster service workers, would have given you a chance to get rid of both theappeals backlog and the application backlog . what gives. >> we also did not have the third senior analyst for much of 2020 as well. we still don't have that spot filled. we also there's some issues withthe director as well. we didn't necessarily have that filled 100 percent .

all that led to us having a skeleton crew in much of 2020. we did a lot of work in a sense we got through the 2018. most of the 20 19th and got through an appeals backlog. we were able to little down an existing enforcement case backlog from if i'm not mistaken close to 800. we got that down to 350. so if i were to like summarize what we've been doing from the last 12 months it's really offering on getting the backlogs down for anumber of reasons .like i mentionedit's good customer service . it is good enforcement work and it's just operating sufficiently. >> when did you come on to direct this department program? >>october 2020 . >> got it. >> you been at it now for a year. >> about a year.

almost a year. it started mid-october. >> got you. thatexplains why we don't see you anymore . >> that's why you don't see me within the other legislative staff. i am in the trenches here at osgr. >> got it. okay. about these applications and certificates we have approximately 2200 different properties that are conducting short-term rental and i do have a map. which i will show right now. essentially that activity throughout the city as you may recall, administrative code does not allow us to identify the exact locations of where this is the correct. so we just decided to show the census tract. as you can see on the map a lot of the activities coming in the heart of the city in the center of the city in the eighth, d9, d7, parts of the four supervisor have any in your

district that looks to be north beach in the soma and b6.this is essentially where the short-termrental activity is occurring . >> that's fascinating. thank you for the map. >>. [please stand by]

>> we ask that applicants submit some other document and we're checking to see that the names and the addresses all line up. we're looking to see if the unit is eligible. we are checking to see if there is a possession of a valid business registration certificate as well. when you look at an application, if there are short-term listings up. we're going to take a look at those. we want to see the images and the spaces offered. we want to make sure all of this information is consistent with the application and the regulations. and if there's any grey areas, we will conduct site when this

is needed. it also involves property owner notification with the applicants or tenants as well as when the applicant's dwelling unit is part of a tenancy is common. and i do want to make sure the ofstr does not base their approval on these private agreements. just quick interesting facts. approximately 14% of hosts identify as renters in 2015 and now we're seeing that number in 2021 decline to about 10% the original application. prior to 2019, 14% of the hosts identify as renters the code

requires the controller's office to set the fees. the fees are now 450 and we have collected $2.24 million to date. i do want to -- go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: wait a minute. >> that's in the application fees. >> got it. >> supervisor peskin: and that would be since 2020. >> since conception. >> supervisor peskin: so since conception those were at $50 and later as a part of cost recovery, they went up to their $450 so that graph would clearly -- i'm just looking at

cost recovery questions, but we'll get back to it at that point. >> yeah. so it was $250 and then $450. so it's gone up a little bit steadily. i'd like to now pivot over to talk about the enforcement and compliance we'd like to think it's application review as well as proactive action. under application review, the denials of pending applications are largely due to nonresidency by the applicant. this often can be the applicant have been an operation came to a tourist hotel offering a second unit in the same building or offering

enforcement action we also received a number of complaints. the majority of complaints are tied to issues, nonresidency issues, short-term rentals being conducted in commercial or industrial spaces or as well as an unauthorized group thousandsing situations we've seen instances where there are five to 20 bunk beds. and i do want to make a note that the complaint are high low. those are forwarded to the department's code enforcement team that those are not under the per view 41a. we also conduct proactive actions once a month. we're continually seeing 311 complaints. we also have weekly and monthly audits of the platform rosters

of listings. this enables the ostr to practice the removal of listings where certificates were suspended or expired. >> supervisor peskin: and, mr. sanchez, relative to that which was a big issue in 2016 and 2017, how much of that is happening? i mean, it sounds like airbnb and the others are giving you your monthly reports, but how often when you scrape that data are you finding that they are listing things they need to inform them they need to remove? >> it varies greatly by month. i think the take-home here is that when we identify listing that shouldn't be up, they tend to take them down essentially within three to five business days. they've been doing that since october. >> supervisor peskin: i guess

the question here is how much stuff are they that doesn't have a permanent number. >> i mean, some of the analysts would say approximately about 50 a month, but that sort of varies on the market. a good approximation would be about 50 listings that we have to take down a month. >> supervisor peskin: are those taken down because they don't have -- are anything taken down because they don't have a permit number? >> exclusively a permit number? >> supervisor peskin: that was identified in the legislation. you tell me. >> sure, so they'll be taken down. if they're pending applications, they're not going to have the permit number. we'll also call that a certificate number once we have reviewed the application and approved it, you'll be issued a certificate number or permit number. because the settlement agreement allows one to host with a pending application, there is no certificate or

permit number for those applications. we take those down, we take both down with no application, with no permit number without an application. we take them down if, you know, if they're not in compliance with the regulations, then we're going to take them down. we're going to ask that they be taken down and we've found they're taken down within three to five business days. >> supervisor peskin: and, have you guys taken any enforcement action with the platforms or those have not been to your mind necessary? >> we haven't taken those in the year or so that i've been here. >> supervisor peskin: okay. well, it seems to me that i would imagine, tell me if i'm wrong that the majority of the applications are pass through applications where the individual applies on airbnb's website and those are passed through to you and the office of short term rentals. is that the majority of the

applications if not the vast majority, super majority of the applications? >> most are coming through the system, the online system. i think we're about mid potential like 80% are coming through directly through us. we may see something like about 12, 15, that are coming through these pass through registration systems. >> supervisor peskin: okay. that's interesting information. thank you, mr. sanchez. >> sure. >> supervisor melgar: i had a couple questions on this. >> yes. >> supervisor melgar: so, you know, i know that this is like a new regulatory regime or still newish, but it occurs to me sort of odd that we are letting folks operate whether applications are pending as supervisor peskin and i have been involved in the last few weeks looking at our department of building inspection, you know, it occurs to me that it

would be sort of odd to let them start the construction, you know, spending the permits, and i realize that maybe because it's new and, you know, we're still figuring it out and have capacity issues, that is what we're doing, but is there going to be some point, do you think, where we catch up with a backlog and, we, people can't operate until their applications are approved? >> you know, definitely we can explore that issue once the backlogs are taken down a little bit more reasonable. however, this is written in the settlement agreement and so, this could be considered a material change to that and that's potentially grounds for the settlement agreement to dissolve and so if we were to make this change, i think we would have to really think about it i think. you know, all parties involved because there could be

consequences, we could potentially lose the cooperation we have right now with airbnb and vrbos who have more than 99% of the listings up. >> supervisor melgar: so our goal should be to try to get through these as soon as possible to make sure that people are compliant before they can operate. >> yes. i would agree with that. >> supervisor melgar: yeah. and i was wondering in terms of enforcement and compliance, you know, looking at the map that you presented earlier of the concentration of applications throughout the city, it seemed like there were more in the homeowner occupied districts and tenant occupied districts. do you have any data about enforcement, complaints, like homeowner source of tenants? >> yeah. i think we probably could get that potentially. i don't have that at my finger tips right now.

>> supervisor melgar: okay. we had some complaints from neighbors about, you know, sort of group housing and folks being told they're short-term members rather than tenants, you know, in one of these group housings, and i'm wondering if that is part of the compliance and you guys and the rent board are collaborating on enforcing and making sure that, you know, folks are complying in the right category. >> we definitely would reach out to the board. i think the threshold for it us is if the leases are going to be so the leases are going to be longer than that, then it's going to be a difference maker. >> supervisor melgar: sorry to cut you off.

that's my question. if one of these things, these memberships or whatever and the rent board says, you know, what you guys are doing is not okay under the rent ordinance, do you then go out and pull their permit? >> no, we can't enforce the rent board ordinances. we would reach out to the planning code or the rent boards. i don't think we have the right to enforce other boards. >> supervisor melgar: right. thank you. >> okay. so since inception, we have closed or abated approximately 1855 rental complaints and, again, you see those areas spike in 2021. again, my understanding is that represents a redoubled efforts

to get the backlog in enforcement cases. complaint review varies based on the nature of the complaint. the majority of complaints are tied to pending applications. the triage review denied these applications and also delist them and take them down from the different hosting platforms some complaints the d.b.i., fire department or the code enforcement. i do want to make a note that many complaints filed before 2018. that ceased as a result due to the short-term rental accountability law. we suspend applicant certificates when there's a violation of short term rental law. the primary cause of the suspensions include nonresidency, code complaints,

closure of business registration and failure to provide business records business records are going to be the booking calendars which are going to show how many guests stayed at what frequency as well as pay-out. a substantial portion of complaint review focuses on denial pending applications. as i mentioned we will request booking calendars sometimes through the administrative suspends and, again, this information is used along with site visits and listing reviews to verify and respond to complaints accordingly. so as i mentioned, as of this month, we have abated 165 enforcement cases we have assessed 2.6 million and have about 79,000 in outstanding

penalties. >> mr. sanchez, first of all, let's go back a couple slides. when you seek the suspensions how long until the issue is remedied or okay. >> yeah. and the next slide is very troubling and i'll tell you why it's troubling because in january 2018 when this presentation was last made, they had enforcement of 677 units. this 1,865 enforcement cases is with the same metric of units. but here's the big news which was three years ago with a third of the enforcement cases, you guys claimed at that point

that you had already assessed $1.7 million in penalties and corrected almost a million of that. so it doesn't seem possible that the amount that you assess went down a half a million dollars when your enforcement cases went up by 300% over the borrowing years. so this dog as they say don't hunt. >> definitely. we double our efforts to look at and straighten out our penalties collected on enforcement date. definitely apologize for the large discrepancy. we do want to note that some enforcement cases do not result in penalties assessed. >> supervisor peskin: i get that. i'm just reading from january 17ththen 2018 at the government oversight committee, 677 units were short term

rental violations. 953,000 collected to date. 973 market street settled with 192,000 collected and that does not jive with this even close. >> definitely. i want to apologize for the discrepancy that you're pointing out. it will be first order of business to straighten that out. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> okay. so again, here is the map of enforcement cases that supervisor peskin referenced earlier in the discussion. >> supervisor peskin: yes. yeah. thank you. appreciate that. >> definitely. and i do want to quickly talk about the community response. what we have heard is that hosts have noted concerns with increases in application fees

and the transition to online application and account management through the online permitting system. neighbors in supportive housing. and the staff has noted general lack of complaints when a host is in compliance with these rules. platform accountability and property owner notification has led to substantial drop in complaints of owners in apartment buildings with rentals conducted by lessees. so the osdr has steadily worked to stop hosting from operating in the city's scarce housing stock. and consequently and we'll continue to vet that short-term housing population to show that honest operators continue while preserving quality of life and

long-term residential uses citywide. so that concludes my slides. again, i'm here, happy to continue to answer your questions. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair. i do want to and first of all, we all have to acknowledge that the last two years have just been an extraordinary circumstance so that's weird data and mr. sanchez also talked about the fact that he is relatively new to this and that was maybe a little bit some bumpy personnel issues prior to his taking on this role. so all understandable. i do want to thank and acknowledge ostr staff who couldn't to do an outstanding job.

if you look back at my e-mail rent control of housing off the market, you name it, those have diminished greatly. i don't want to speak on behalf of my colleagues, but i think that's the ewe bicktous sentiment in reality. i do think the two things we've identified here, chair melgar, you just put your finger on is even before covid, the lag between applications and permitting is lengthy enough that and the market's kind of stabilize that i think we should have a policy conversation as to how we might want to tweak that. i personally have some trepidation about that aspect

of the public policy now dating back to the settlement in 2017. we might want to tighten that up. we could have a public policy conversation about that and making it for a shorter term duration. so either planning gets you through the system in six months or you're deemed at that point to not be able to list, but i think we should focus on that a little bit and then obviously this discrepancy which we cannot assign to the transition to as it relates to enforcement dollars collected is that one is a little scary, so we've got to get to the bottom of that but we can maybe when we have our high or low portion of the hearing, we can

get a public followup and all get information online but also get some answers as to why there's that huge discrepancy over the three-year period on enforcement dollars collected while the number of enforcement case has almost tripled. thank you for having this hearing. >> supervisor melgar: thank you for calling for this hearing, supervisor peskin. thank you, mr. sanchez and to the rent board folks and mr. t. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment on this item, please. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. d.t.a.'s checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. please press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait. the system will indicate you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have ten listeners and seven

in queue. maria, if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. much appreciation to supervisor peskin for calling this hearing and his aid for her work on this important issue. in the past few years, the short and intermediate linked rental business has exploded. billions of dollars converted. so they're hard to find and hard to regulate for the future of our city, it's imperative we take this with active enforcement before 2023. otherwise, tenants will continue to get displaced out of the city and speculative will turn our desperately

needed housing into tourists and corporate uses. membership housing market and manage membership housing and these residents don't know that they have just caused rent stabilization protections afforded to all tenants. these undermine goals of equity, community, and stability. also included in the city's housing inventory so the public and policy members can see how many units are taken off the market. what prices are charged and where it's distributed around the city. the journal of economics public publisher report last year. and housing prices by 17%. this is a real market impact that's not unique to barcelona, but until we get serious about investigating and regulating these uses in san francisco, these speculators will continue

to cause housing price increases and displacement with imputin while people of color and low income san franciscans suffer the consequences. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. we have seven in queue and eleven listening. next caller, please. >> hi, i am a tenant rights organizer with the mission collaborative. as someone who worked with tenants who are now under threat of being evicted and displaced from their homes, i believe that the city must enforce the legislation as it will directly impact immigrant tenants. homes will be transformed into tourist and corporate uses driven by tech capital and speculation. especially at a time like this when the moratorium is about to end, you will see a gloom and violent action being taken

against low income tenants. i urge the city controller's office to move forward with conducting an analysis of the impacts created by the units and for that to be submitted to the board of supervisors. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. we have six in queue. >> my name is francisco de costa and as one of the speakers stated, looking at things happening all over the world, we need enforcement and you don't need to be a rocket scientist that here in this pandemic here in san francisco, those who are in charge of the short-term renter and this new intermediate occupancy renter registration and enforcement are not doing a good job and

the presentation given is very convoluted when you see the slides, you can't even read them and yet we're supposed to speak on them. so i think this matter has to be continued. and the other thing is when the elders who give up comment to inform the supervisors so that they can get some empirical data that should not be criticized or stopped. so that has some empathy and let our seniors talk. the facilitator should be given an orientation. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. we have five in queue.

>> hi, my name's aaron. i live in district nine and i'm a tenants rights counselor with the mission sro collaborative and the race and equity and all planning coalition. the housing stock and the tenants we work with are especially vulnerable to impacts of unit conversions and short term rentals facilitated by corporate rental platforms. legislation tracking and regulating corporate strs and high r.o.s to preserve affordable housing. to preserve san francisco's history of gentrification and displacement. emerging land use and transportation committee recommend that the city controller's office move forward immediately and conduct an analysis of the impacts created by the development of new units on the city to be submitted to the board of supervisors so that the legislation can be enforced properly.

thank you for your time. >> clerk: next caller. >> hi, this is brett gladstone. i'm a san francisco land use attorney who helps property owners and in this case and giving advice to owners about how to comply with the intermediate land law without being too critical of the zoning administrator as there's been no budget money allocated to help the planning department with the i.l.o. and nonetheless, i wanted to point out what it's like to be a user of the i.l.o. registration system. there needs to be clarification and i do think there needs to be some forms just as an example i submitted several applications and was told in one case, a 3r was needed

because the i.l.o. had to be shown on the building plan which meant to create building plans. and in another case, it's been about five weeks and we've heard no input back from whether our registration is complete and i think there needs to be an analysis right now of how many applications have been made so far because they'll be a race come june 22nd to the finish line to see how many people can occupy the thousand spots. so with all do respect to who doesn't have the money for the program, i think we need better information on the website and we need a better system of registration and know what the roadblocks and the hoops that have to be jumped through are.

and i appreciate that holding a hearing. thanks very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. this is teresa flandrick. i have been part of the share better sf coalition since 2014 about short-term rentals and them being regulated. i want to give you two examples of what i see here which is in north beach which is the tennessee owners of eight buildings in the city had been doing short-term rentals until we actually got some regulation in place since they weren't, you know, primary residents for the tennessee family. it was a matter of them quickly changing to i.l.o.. so greater than 30 days. and, for the first time in six

years, i'm happy to report there i've seen for rent signs in one building on grand avenue and the for rent sign is down. people are actually living there. but that didn't happen until the pandemic. so that's one example of we really haven't been able to get a hold, i mean, really grasp what is going on in terms of those who had been doing short-term rentals and turn them into the i.l.o.s, as well as another building here on columbus avenue. i noticed that mailboxes were wide open and not seeing any lights on, not seeing permanent residents there that when i did a quick search, i found that it was actually run by latitude 38. one of the corporations, so that that exists and that nothing's been done and these were -- this is rent controlled

building again that we really need to have greater enforcement and it didn't take much for me to discover that. so i think we could do a much better job on that. i think also, it's important to change the pending status of short-term rental. >> your time has concluded. >> clerk: thank you. your time has elapsed. next speaker please. we have 13 listeners with three in queue. if you have not already, press star three to be added to the queue. you only need to press this once. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors. i am the program manager of the mission sro collaborative and a partner of the rates and equity and all planning coalition. we have what is a speculation of sros and other rental

properties being forced intoco-working spaces. this has impacted tenants and working class immigrant renters as this completes the two year affordable housing stock in the city in the midst of a pandemic ending a moratorium. and rapid gentrification of a city. the city to prevent platforms from operating illegally and exploiting a loophole that continues to harm tenants. we conduct an analysis of the combablgt created by the development of new i.l.o. units on the city to be submitted to the board of supervisors. additionally, i.l.o.s and s.t.r.s must be included in the city's housing inventory so the larger public and city can be informed about the distribution

of these and the number of units and what prices are charged for these services. as stated by my colleague, speculation will continue to cause housing crisis increase while people of color and low income san franciscans will suffer the consequences. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker. we have twelve listening and two in queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the rates and equity and planning coalition and people. thank you to supervisor peskin for calling this hearing and your office for all of your work on this critical issue. in the last few years even parts of the pandemic, we've been seeing the proliferation of short-term and intermediate length rentals by venture capital and tech forms taking over san francisco, the greater bay area and many other cities across the country. our communities are being

impacted pro foundly as long-term residential units are lost and converted for short term uses including corporate housing, shared spaces and member housing. and these platforms continue to embark on ventures to extract the most amount of profit possible with little accountability and limited tracking of their operations and their real time impacts. the lack of active and sustained enforcement and regulation is contributing to speculation and displacement in our communities and we need to better understand how the platforms are impacting our housing market. we need to take comprehensive and serious stock of who these platforms are, where these platforms are operating. include these s.t.r.s, i.l.o.s and housing inventory. and hold these platforms and entities accountable for continued violations if we truly care about stabilizing

our most vulnerable and if we truly want to address issues of equity and affordability. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have one more caller left. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. this is brad kern has housing rights committee of san francisco. i want to thank supervisor peskin and his clerk for all the work on this important issue. h.r.c. has worked on the original ordinance and i want to speak quickly just to the issue of i.l.o.s and rent controlled buildings and the viable remedy for tenants. as it stands, the private right of action is not a viable remedy for the vast majority of tenants and tenants and nonprofits and what we know from visiting buildings, talking with tenants that i.l.o.s continue in rent

controlled properties. it's fact and it's continuing to this day. we know that through just conversations with tenants talking to other tenants and tenants talking to tenants who have lived in these units. and so if that's part of the enforcement mechanism, if that's the expectation for the enforcement of this ordinance, then we would strongly recommend a rent board remedy, a petition and subsequent hearing that's far more acceptable to tenants and tenant nonprofits than a civil suit. thank you for your time and thank you for all the work on this hearing and this ordinance. >> clerk: thank you so much. actually, we have a few more callers that popped up. we have ten listeners with three in queue. next caller, please. >> hello supervisors.

thank you for taking my -- hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. go ahead. >> all right. great. thank you. thank you for taking my comment. my name is steven hill. i live in the outer sunset first. i have an airbnb rental three doors down the street from me. it was a three bedroom home they carved up into six bedrooms. it's being used fairly constantly. it's clearly breaking the law in terms of how often it's being used and other factors. we've complained about this numerous times, the short term rental office has never done anything about it. so they pretty much have told us we've got this under control now in san francisco, but from what we see just right down the street from me, that's just simply not the case. the other thing i want to mention, it has to do with a new law that was passed having

to do with what's called accessory dwelling units or in-law units. san francisco is trying to legalize these as much as possible which i think is a good idea. but when the law was created, i urged supervisor mar who was pushing this to make sure because tymoney is being spent to help people to figure out whether they could do this and so the city money is being used to assist in the creation of a.d.u.s but they didn't put anything in there saying that these a.d.u.s could not be used for airbnb and short-term rentals. so we're in a situation where the city may actually be expending taxpayer money to help more airbnb short-term rentals to come on the market and that is a really inappropriate use of taxpayer money in my view. so i hope that the followup legislation can be added to make sure that if a place

contacts the city and uses that assistance to create their a.d.u., that they must agree that they cannot use that a.d.u. for a short-term rental. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. we have eight listening with two in queue. next speaker, please. >> linda chapman. if there ever was a proponent of stakeholder for short-term rentals, it's me. the first time that legislation's protect dwelling units was ever passed was actually at the same time as the residential hotel conversion ordinance. i worked on that and because knob hill was suffering from the short-term rental of dwelling units and because i was so persistent, they passed a law that prohibited the short-term rental under 30 days

of any dwelling unit at all. it passed. it was signed by the mayor. it was not thrown out of court when the residential hotel law was drawn out of court. but what happened? it went to the city attorney's office and alice barkley was working there. and she simply eviscerated it. and i was so stupid that instead of going -- well, we lagged always on our office. art's office tried to deal with alice. couldn't do anything. didn't deal with the, you know, city attorney himself and i was too stupid to go back to harry brit and say hey we passed this law. the difference was withturned onto fact there was a dwelling unit and there was a room. rooms were for hire. that's why we had a problem

with the residential hotel. what was the traditional use. dwelling units were not for hire. there was an implied lease even if it wasn't a written lease. there were all kinds of reasons why it was illegal. my fear is always that you're going to do something like you grandfather them in or people can apply. no. either they were commercial used in an area that was residential or they required an additional -- >> clerk: next speaker please. we have one left in queue. >> hello. this is anastasiya yovonapolis and the race and equity and all planning coalition. i'm really concerned that so many i.l.o.s are out there and

we can't even detect them and that so many rental units of affordable housing are being converted to these other uses. i know there's a certain amount that are legally entitled to do that, but i think there are far too many that are going under the radar. so i'm hoping you'll be anal to work out some kind of enforcement on these and make sure that tenants are not displaced. thank you. >> thank you so much. and that concludes the last caller in queue. madam chair. >> chairman: thank you very much, madam clerk. public comment on this item is now closed. colleagues, are there any further comments? if not, can we get a motion to continue this hearing at the call of this chair. >> supervisor peskin: thank

you, madam chair. yes, i think this is productive and helpful and looking forward to the intermediate linked occupancy hearing in the weeks to come and we'll work to develop that with planning department staff and certainly encourage planning department staff to make a more clear application process in the intervening minutes on the web page and i think it could be a lot more friendly to applicants and look forward to answers to some of the questions we talked about relative to short-term rentals. and i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> chairman: thank you very muches, supervisor peskin. before we take the roll, i just wanted to add that i'm also very interested in what the rent board has to say about the issues of group housing and

membership as it applies to intermediate short-term renting. thank you, madam clerk. can you please call roll. >> clerk: on the motion made to the call of the chair made by supervisor peskin, [roll call] the motion passes. item number six. this is set to expire on september 30th, 2021. members of the public who wish

to public on item number six should call the number on the screen. that number is (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24973120703. press pound and pound again. press star three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor preston, thank you for introducing this item. the floor is yours. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. and we are back with another eviction item. i think the number of times that we have been on a short-term basis extending these protections is one of many indicators of how long this pandemic is dragging on. thank you for getting this on the agenda so promptly because as i'll describe a little bit, this is obviously a time sensitive matter.

so on september 14th, i introduced a legislative package to extend our local moratorium on a no fault residential eviction to cover the period through the end of the year and that package included an emergency ordinance to prevent the local protections from expiring september 30th, that's what's before us today and also an ordinance to carry these protections through the end of the year which i hope we'll be in committee soon. i wanted to make sure we got the emergency protections in before the september 30th deadline. as it stands now, eviction protection both for the so-called no fault eviction and also for the nonpayment evictions are all set to expire at the end of this month on september 30th. state lawmakers through ab-832 as we've discussed at the board previously has sought to take away our local government's

ability to extend protections in the nonpayment context for evictions and, you know, this is really -- i mean, i can't think of any way to describe this other than infuriating and a real capitulation to the statewide real estate lobby and i think that it's really disappointing despite calls from around the state including unanimously our board supervisors urging the governor to extend those protections, the governor at this point has not even publicly addressed the calls for extending that -- those protections against evictions beyond september 30th. but that's the bad news. the good news is that the changes in state law that have attempted to restrain us from protecting tenants from nonpayment evictions, that same

law has not taken away our ability as local government to regulate other types of evictions like owner movement eviction, capital improvement eviction, demolition, substantial rehabilitation and many other types of eviction. as we continue to deal with the delta variant and a very uncertain future with this pandemic, there is a compelling reason now in my view to permit people to be thrown out on the street through no fault of their own and i think that preventing eviction is a public health issue and this pandemic is unfortunately not over. we've passed multiple pieces of legislation during the pandemic to stop these kinds of evictions. we passed each one unanimously and i just want to thank colleagues you both on this committee, but also the entire board of supervisors for our

consistent support of these bills as well as the mayor for early on before there are ordinances, the initial the directive that the mayor issued to prevent these evictions. and so i think you know all of us in leadership have been acting collectively to prevent these evictions and it has worked. i want to say that these kinds of evictions really plummeted through the pandemic as a result of legislative action from this body and i think we need to continue to do everything possible to prevent a surge of evictions as the pandemic drags on especially as some of these protections expire. so i'd like to thank my early cosponsors including chair melgar and supervisor peskin as well as president walton, supervisor ronen, supervisor chan, and supervisor haney. at the appropriate time, i'll ask that we move this item to the full board with committee

recommendation. thank you. >> chairman: thank you so much, supervisor preston, for being a steady hand in making sure the tenants are protected in our city. let's take public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. d. t.a. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not done so already, please press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait. it looks like we have four listeners, but none in queue, madam chair. >> chairman: okay. with that, public comment on this item is now closed. supervisor preston, was that a motion that you made to send this out with a positive recommendation as a committee report? >> supervisor preston: yeah. so moved. >> chairman: madam clerk, let's take roll on that, please. >> clerk: on the motion supervisor preston recommend as a committee report, roll really [roll call]

you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you so much. this motion passes with positive recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. we are adjourned. thank you both, colleagues. >> supervisor preston: thank you. .

>> my name is angela wilson and i'm an owner of the market i worked at a butcher for about 10 years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a

been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to support butcher shops eat less we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us

this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and strong in san francisco labor is high our cost of good ideas we seal the best good ideas the profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence

of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love setting up and love knowing were any food comes from i do the lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very

special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this

and empowering them to learn

>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods

and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow. for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide

assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their

relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here.

essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on

the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea

that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a wedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been

blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that >> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born.

>> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with,

like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take

them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being

my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring my family to

the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount

of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical

almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after welcome to th did you know that many buildings in san francisco are not bolted

to the foundation on today's episode we'll learn how the option to bolt our foundation in an earthquake. >> hi, everybody welcome to another episode of stay safe i'm the director of earthquake safety in the city and county of san francisco i'm joined by a friend matt. >> thank you thanks for being with us we're in a garage but at the el cap center south of market in san francisco what we've done a simulated the garage to show you what it is like to make the improvements and reduce the reflexes of earthquake we're looking at foundation bolts what do they

do. >> the foundation bolts are one of the strengthening system they hold the lowest piece of wood onto the foundation that prevents the allows from sliding during an earthquake that is a bolt over the original construction and these are typically put in along the foundation to secure the house to the foundation one of the things we'll show you many types of bolts let's go outside and show the vufrdz we're outside the epic center in downtown san francisco we'll show 3 different types of bolts we have a e poxy anchor. >> it is a type of anchor that is adhesive and this is a rod we'll embed both the awe hey that embeds it into the

foundation that will flip over a big square washer so it secured the mud sell to the foundation we'll need to big drill luckily we have peter from the company that will help us drill the first hole. >> so, now we have the hole drilled i'll stick the bolt in and e post-office box it. >> that wouldn't be a bad idea but the dust will prevent the e post-office box from bonding we need to clean the hole out first. >> so, now we have properly cleaned hole what's the next step. >> the next step to use e post-office box 2 consultants that mixes this together and get

them into tubes and put a notice he will into the hole and put the e post-office box slowly and have a hole with e post-office box. >> now it is important to worm or remember when you bolt our own foundation you have to go to 9 department of building inspection and get a permit before you start what should we look at next what i did next bolt. >> a couple of anchors that expand and we can try to next that will take a hole that hole is drilled slightly larger marathon the anchor size for the e post-office box to flow around the anchor and at expansion is going into the hole the same diameter we'll switch the holes

so, now we have the second hole drilled what next. >> this is the anchor and this one has hard and steel threads that cuts their way into the concrete it is a ti ton anchor with the same large square so similar this didn't require e post-office box. >> that's correct you don't needed for the e post-office box to adhere overnight it will stick more easily.

>> and so, now it is good to go is that it. >> that's it. >> the third anchor is a universal foundation plate when you don't have room above our foundation to drill from the top. >> so, now we have our

foundation plate and the tightened screw a couple of ways to take care of a foundation what's the best. >> the best one depends on what your house is like and our contractors experience they're sometimes considered the cadillac anchor and triplely instead of not witting for the e post-office box this is essentially to use when you don't have the overhead for the foundation it really depends on the contractor and engineering what they prefer. >> talking to a qualified professional and see what

[roll call] >> clerk: and commissioner anderson has an excused absence. this is the recreation and park meeting of september 16th, 2021. please note due to the covid-19 health emergency city employees and the public, the meeting rooms at city hall are closed. we ask listeners to turn down your televisions and/or computers while listening on the phone. we ask for your patience if we appearance any technical issues. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. public comment is available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. and the access code