>> welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today monday january 10, our first meeting of the new year. i'm the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor rafael mandelman. our clerk is mr. young.

>> clerk: the minutes will reflect the video conference. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public participation. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda either channel 26, 78 or 99 at sfgovtv.org or streaming the public call in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two u.m.u.s -- two minutes to speak. you can call (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. is 24937467581. you will hear the meeting session. you will be muted and in listen mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down

your television or radio. you can e-mail rules committee clerk victor.young@sfgovtv.org. comments maybe sent by u.s. mail to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. that completes my initial comments. >> supervisor peskin: please read the first item. we are joined by board president walton for items 2, 3 and 4. first item please. >> clerk: item number is hearing considering appointing five minutes term ending december 17,

2023 to the sweatfree procurement advisory group. anyone like to provide public comment call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24937467581. then press pound and pound again. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> supervisor peskin: , we have three of five seats that are subject to applications. all of them individuals who want to continue to serve on this advisory group that was created during my second term as supervisor long time ago when then former state senator tom hayden was on a mission to get governments to reform their procurement behaviors.

two of the three applicants are here today. david oringer like to continue to represent employees. there are still two seats that are vacant. so people who are serving on the sweatfree procurement advisory group should apply to board of supervisors for the two seats. why don't we hear from the applicants present, marin julienne fisher. >> i'm marin. i served on the committee for more than the past four years. i've been the vice chair. do you have any questions?

>> supervisor peskin: i don't have any questions. thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to work on this important advisory group. if there are no questions from committee members, why don't we move on to julienne fisher. >> i'm working on my camera. i'm looking forward to the opportunity to continue as member of the sweatfree community advisory group. i look forward to helping with that and whatever other exactlies that come up in the

coming years. >> chair peskin: thank you for your service and willingness to continue that work. i don't see any questions from members. why don't we open up to general public comment. any members of ther public like to comment on item number 1? >> clerk: we're checking to see if there's caller in the queue. please dial 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have seven people listening but nobody in line for public comment at this time. >> chair peskin: okay, we'll close public comment. colleagues, how about we vote. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. i want to thank all the applicants for submitting their

applications and willing to commit their time and efforts in this critical issue. i want to give a shot out to julienne fisher who is a constituent of mine and neighbor of mine. i want to commend her work not just for the sweatfree committee but also living wage coalition and ensuring workers rights and really a fair wage as well as good working conditions for them. i look forward to seeing their work, especially during the pandemic. today i noted that there's some studies coming out that during pandemic, the ethical practice of these factories may have downgraded significantly. i really look forward to seeing your work and partner with your

work. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you supervisor chan for those comments. would you like to make a motion? >> supervisor chan: yes. it will be my privilege to make a motion to move forward three applicants with recommendation. >> chair peskin: on that motion mr. young. roll call please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to appoint jason oringer to seat one, marin to seat 2 and julienne fisher to seat 4. [roll call vote]. the motion passes without objection. next item 2, ordinance amending

the administrative code to provide members of the public and sanitation and streets commission with health insurance coverage to the san francisco health service system. members of the public wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. young. we are joined by the author of this administrative code amendment. supervisor walton. the floor is yours.

>> supervisor walton: this is to expand health service system. including public works commission, sanitation and street commission, and the sheriff's department oversight board so our new commissioners have the option of health insurance coverage through the san francisco health services system. i'm requesting that this ordinance is sent as a committee report tomorrow's meeting as we are very close to swearing in new members of the sheriff's department oversight board. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. president. one question for you. which is i don't see reference in the file before us which is what this will actually cost. relative to the in addition of these three bodies. >> supervisor walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. give me couple of minutes i will get that to you. >> chair peskin: any questions or comments from committee

members? seeing none at the moment. we can item number 2 up for public comment. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there's callers in the queue. please dial star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. it appears we have 9 people listening and one caller to speak. >> caller: yes. my name is denise mayfield. i'm coming to you about p.o.b., protect our benefit request. there's a supplemental cola that has been put aside for those that retire before 1996.

>> chair peskin: i'm sorry, that is not germane to the issue before us. you can make that general public comment tomorrow at the board of supervisors. this is an item on an amendment to the administrative code to provide healthcare benefits to individuals on three public oversight bodies. are there any other members of the public who like to testify on this item number 2? >> clerk: that was our last public commenter for this item. one moment. that was our last caller. >> chair peskin: public comment on item 2 is closed. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. why don't we move to item 3 and come back as i get a response. >> chair peskin: while we're awaiting to answer to item 2,

mr. clerk, please skip over that for now and please call item 3. >> clerk: item number 3 is an ordinance many amending the elections code to submit information, documenting the city's intended open source pilot program to the california secretary of state on behalf of the board of supervisors and upon approval of the secretary of state to implement such a system for use at the november 8, 2022 election. members of the public who wish to provide public comment call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. if you haven't already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. just to note, there's a request that items 2 and 3 be sent -- [ indiscernible ]

>> chair peskin: i'm aware. president walton this item has been brought to the committee. >> supervisor walton: again, i'm back. this one is another very simple item i have before you to authorize an open source voting pilot in san francisco. this legislation will allow the department of elections to submit a pilot for review with the secretary of state as you all know, the board has tried previously for over the past 15 years to push for an open source voting system and we're very close. we've been innovative leader when it comes to settling standards for fair and transparent elections. this will allow us to continue to do that. i'm requesting this item to be sent as a committee report and i like to thank elections director for moving forward with this project.

elections commissioner chris and trent lang director of california clean money campaign for the advocacy organizing the community support throughout california system. deputy city attorney for helping us draft this legislation and my chief of staff. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any questions or comments from committee members? this thing has been kicking around this institution as long as i've been kicking around in this institution. let's go to public comment. are there members of the public who like to comment on item number 3, related to open source voting? >> clerk: we are checking do see if there are any callers in the queue. please dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak.

we have 7 callers in line to speak at this time. please note that public comment is through call-in only. you should not be on microsoft teams for public comment. again, the public comment line to call for public comment is (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. then press pound and pound again. you can press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. mr. atkins, can we have the first public comment?

>> caller: good morning, my name is alec bash. i'm calling in support of this ordinance. i want to express my appreciation to the president of the board for sponsoring it and to the other cosponsors and to chair peskin for his having to continue this for so many years now. i've been involved with that issue from the outset. i want to tell you how important this is and how beneficial this is for san francisco to proceed with this. i want to thank you for going forward with this. which i believe the committee tends to do. thank you, that's all i had to say. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. bash. next speaker please. >> caller: thank you.

good morning. my name is c.j. cole. i'm with the organization fair fight voting. national nonprofit to strength. democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in elections. my comment are likewise. we support this legislation. we appreciate president walton for bringing this forward and others that have been involved in crafting this legislation and pushing for this for many years within san francisco. open source voting is a good idea for transparency. it is worthwhile mentioning that open source voting is not sufficient alone for security. there are other safeguards that should be in place including robust post-election auditing. restoring trust in instilling trust in elections and outcome of elections through piloting

this open source voting project certainly will be paramount. we support this idea. we hope receive favorable report to the full board and fairable from the full board tomorrow. appreciate this coming forward and verifying voting support. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: next speaker please. >> caller: thank you to the members of the rules committee. my name is matt roe. i'm speaking on behalf voting works. nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that will be providing the hardware and software and services for the proposed open source voting pilot. voting works is the only nonprofit voting systems vendor deployed in the united states elections.

i submitted a letter in september last year to the board of supervisors election commission and director of elections indicating we will be interested serving open source voting system pilot at no cost to san francisco. i worked with director of elections john partnership to - john arnst. most recently, i worked with the director to draft procedure for the pilot program to start the regulation process for open source voting system in california per the secretary of state november request. i'm coordinating with the mayor disability council to incorporate feedback. i want to thank the san francisco election commission for their support today, board of supervisors president walton

for introducing this legislation and director of elections for his partnership finding pilot program. thank you for your consideration. i'm available to answer any questions regarding voting work and our technology. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any questions for -- i see no questions. all right. why don't we -- we already dealt with ural item. you have been recommended to the full board. i see you trying to get in. we already discussed item number 1. we can move on to the next caller. >> caller: hello, supervisors. trent lang, president of california clean money campaign. nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with over 100,000 supporters in california. we've been very pleased to work with president walton on this

pilot project as well as the commissioner and the secretary of state office to ensure that the regulations in place in time for this pilot project to go to help san francisco fulfill long-term goals to move to open source voting systems. the board of supervisors long taking leadership in the movement to have more secure and transparent elections with open source voting systems. it's been a very long road. you allocated funding to help develop the system. now it's extra exciting that voting works has come through and designed and built a very strong open source system so the county doesn't have to spend the millions of dollars to build its own. which is pilot project would help to approve and give more transparent elections that people want as well as huge cost savings for the city.

we're also especially excited about this because once it's proven in san francisco and certified, then the whole state and the whole nation will be able to use this system. very excited about this opportunity. thank you all for your support. thank you supervisor mandelman for coming on as a co-sponsor. let's help california lead the nation for more transparent and less costly elections. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> caller: hello, supervisors. my name is brent turner. i'm here today representing some folks -- i don't know if they'll be able to show up on the call. i've been speaking with former cia director as well as fellow by the name of dr. juan gilbert who is very well-known in this particular space and also i want

-- just in case allen decker doesn't show up, i want to give our full support for this work and thank everybody involved. i do have to mention that back in 2004, when alan decker first demonstrated this kind of system with open source, we were soon to present in san francisco. i think around 2006 this work actually started out and then later was carried by others -- i have to thank trent lang for carrying the ball here in san francisco with the public and making sure this didn't go dark on us.

obviously, it's important voting works is able to fill the role that we need right now of providing the trial system and it's a great day for the county and we look forward to seeing this more prevalent throughout the united states. thank you all. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hello. i'm with the national voting rights task force. i have been speaking of open source since 2005. we need this. some source code that has been used in california and across the country was written by mr. elder who had 23 convictions

for embezzlement. we need to look at the source code. we need to know who wrote it. beyond that, there are data files, log files of who logged in. who used the password, who ahead this phone call from the machine. it's just a lot of files that we have not yet been able to get access to. by making it open source, we won't have a -- we'll have a much more transparent election and much better idea of what's going on. the final point is this, the pilot will impact election systems over decades across california. because it's open source across

the country. our elections are really billion --being challenged. we need to make transparent possible. i urge your support for this legislation. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> caller: hi, i'm marin, you just appointed me to the advisory group. it happened at my day job. i maintained open source project for 10 years. i want to say code is law. source code, it counts votes. it's making decisions and those decisions are properly in the hand of elected officials. for example in san francisco, we passed rank choice voting. we limited to three choices not because of the decisions by the

public officials, because the vendor say they can do no more than three. that's endangering trusting code to handle something as voting to a private entity. i'm hoping this is a sea change how we think about government and software. we move more software that makes government decisions into open source and into the hands of the public. thank you. >> caller: hello, i'm david smith i'm long time volunteer for the california clean money campaign. i'm commenting in support of this legislation. i want to thank board president walton for introducing it. committee member mandelman for cosponsoring it. the pilot project from november is a great opportunity. san francisco won't need to spend millions of dollars to develop its own open source

voting system. the nonprofit voting works has developed complete, open source system used in u.s. elections. we can use it. let do it. thank you. >> caller: good morning. i've been the board appointee for the past years. now i'm working closer with president walton's office on today's legislation. i want to thank president walton for their work, committee member mandelman for sponsoring it.

i know chair peskin you presided over hearing. before today's legislation, the city is developing its own open source system. in 2018 the board allocated to start that development but that money was taken away during the pandemic and never restored. during that time, the nonprofit voting works was able to develop open source system on the own. i first discussed the idea mid-september and mid-october, the commission president and i met to discuss the pilot size and scope. the commission discussed the pilot at its september, october, november and december meetings an voting works was in attendance to answer questions. at our december meeting, the

commission voting unanimously to support this legislation. we ask you to support it as well. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner for your continue work on this matter. are there any other members of the public for public comment on this item? >> clerk: i believe we have one more caller in the queue to speak. >> caller: hi. my name is carla. i'm a resident of san francisco and a volunteer with california clean money campaign. i worked years ago when we were out gathering signatures to get support for pilot project few years ago to do a trial open source voting process. one of the things really impressed me, whenever i

approached someone who was in the tech industry, i hardly heard word of open source system. they more than general understood immediately the advantages and security involved in open source voting. it's more important now than ever that we can rebuild the trust that people have in our voting systems that we have secure voting systems and we have the transparency that will support that. thank you. >> chair peskin: are there any last speaker or speakers? >> clerk: one last check. that completes our caller list for public comment. >> chair peskin: public comment on item number 3 is closed. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much supervisor peskin. thank you to everyone who called

in so we can move forward with this pilot and get to the transparency that we all see when it comes to voting. i appreciate everyone who worked on this with us and love for this to go in as a committee report. >> chair peskin: all right. on a motion made by myself to send this item with recommendation as a committee report. mr. young, a roll call please. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote] the motion passes. the matter as a committee report. >> chair peskin: let's circle back to item number 2, president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. still, working on that per person amount. one thing we do know range on

whether or not the individual decide to take advantage on the insurance or number. still waiting on exact number per person. >> chair peskin: all right. mr. clerk, call item number 4. >> clerk: a hearing to unlimited power of inquiry and of course on potential failure to expose conflict of interest in board of appeals member darryl honda. member was of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. price pound and pound again. >> chair peskin: thank you. we are joined by president

walton who i think in mid-october, october 19th, requested that the board of supervisors use unlimited power of inquiry with regard to board of appeals member darryl honda has it relates to allegations in the press with regards to potential failure to disclose conflicts of interest. that led to a letter that president walton sent to mr. honda about december 2nd, requesting the production of various documents. that letter is set forth in the file for this item. subsequently on december 13th, colleagues you will recall we had a brief hearing wherein mr. honda represented by counsel requested that we continue this

item into early 2022 so that they can do more thorough research into the matter which spans a number of years. we are in receipts of the letter dated december 31st. that is part of the file that responds to many of the il--allegations and assertions n that article. we have the opportunity to explore that. i want to thank mr. honda for diving into thinks -- into his files and coming up with information that forms that 10-page letter. wish him beginning of 2022 year. i think there are a number of questions that i have and i know we are joined by presidential walton and thank you darryl for

attending this morning. i will also point to the fact in along the way, a member of the public sent a letter with other allegations that is also part of the file that i will ask some of the questions about. as a threshold issue and i certainly understand and respect what was set forth in the letter namely, that many of the documents that president walton requested have not been furnished on the theory that these documents may contain proprietary information and financial information related to individuals not involved in the matter before the rules committee and therefore, have not been produced to inform this

hearing. but that paragraph on page 2 ends with if the rules committee still wishes to review any of these documents after reviewing this letter, we mr. honda and his counsel, can work with city staff on a way to produce these documents while maintaining confidentiality. i have discussed that with the city attorney's office and city attorneys office will be working with mr. honda and his counsel to determine a method by which we can have access to those documents while maintaining confidentiality. the choices, options range from redactions to having people be able to review them but not keep

them. i will let the attorneys for the city and the attorneys for mr. honda work that threshold issue out before we presumably hear this again. there are a number of things that i would like to explore that are in the letter. before i do that, i would like to start by offering president walton the opportunity to say anything or ask any questions he may wish to ask first. >> supervisor walton: thank you. i appreciate the time. i will defer to you for now. >> chair peskin: okay. i think one of the important issues that is raised in the letter -- i think i understand this -- i'm very pleased to hear

that as set forth in the letter. mr. honda has recused himself on many occasions. numbers not jumping out at me. what i recall, i think 16 occasions in his tenure on the board of appeals. is that in recent time? i'm trying to find where that was in the letter. >> since 2015. since the first matter was called out in the article. >> chair peskin: and has disclosed relationships, business relationships or personal relationships on at least 34 occasions presumably in the same time period. that's very important to know that mr. honda takes his duties to disclose and to recuse

seriously. he does as to the three matters that are raised in a mission local article, bernal heights apartment, the carolina matter and duncan matter discussed at some length that in two of the matters there was no legal requirement for recusal or disclosure given the fact that or the assertion that there has been no income received from the consulting party. not the ownership party sia consulting in the prior 12 months. in the duncan matter, i believe, there is sounds like some after

the fact knowledge that was gained wherein it turns out that it was less than the one-year period for recusal by actually an hand full of days, i think it was 11 months and 17 days and there about. it sounds from the way it's portrayed that was an oversight. i'm summarizing the letter. i want to get to this notion that there is a difference between s.i.a. consulting and the principles of s.i.a. consulting. indeed, mr. honda asserts, i believe this to be true, he has in his role as a realtor, never sold property for s.i.a. consulting but has sold property for its principles. i think that's something that we

need to understand a little bit. there is pursuant to the mission local article and this has to do with a lawsuit brought by former planning commissioner dennis richards, there is a deposition wherein mr. honda considers s.i.a. and its principles to be synonymous. whether it's s.i.a. that he had the business relationship well or the individuals, i think for the purposes of this conversation and our inquiry, that they should be treated as one and the same. let me get to a number of questions that i wanted to ask

mr. honda. this may be a question for our legal counsel. the conflict rules or laws under fair political practices act in the state of california, are not just about receiving income in the last 12 months period. they are also about the promise to receive income in it last 12 month period. this gets interesting. i have not -- i did ask for some legal research on this. which i am not in receipt of. it is an interesting thing as it relates to the role of real estate agent or a real estate broker. in so far as the listing agreement is kind of a promise to be paid but only if the transaction closes.

if a realtor gets a listing agreement for say a period of one year and doesn't sell the property, the realtor doesn't get paid. the question that i'm asking, we'll have to wait for legal advice, does that constitute a promise to be paid? if not akin to when you have a contract to build something, which is a promise that can be enforced through a mechanics lien or lawsuit. you have this relationship with the party even though you may not be paid. that requires a little bit more exploration. with all of that background, ask

a series of questions. one of them in so far there have been not allegations i think proof that other parties associated with s.i.a. consults that are not set forth in the letter. his family gave a loan in the amount of $180,000 to a member of the department of building inspection. his name is absent from the letter dated december 31st.

which does speak to two individuals. mr. s.i.a. topzov. my question to mr. honda is if he has any -- if you ever sold or had listing agreements with with him or whether for that matter, he's ever provided a loan or offered to provide a loan if you done any work for him or for that manner, anybody else affiliated with s.i.a. consulting? >> thank you chair peskin. good morning supervisors. supervisor chan, co-chair

mandelman. i have never done transactions with him today. he's never been a party of s.i.a. consulting, period. not a principle, nor as a worker. i never marketed property for him. i never been approached by him to handle any property, nor have i done any transactions with him. >> chair peskin: thank you for that answer. one thing, i appreciate the forth rightness of this, the december 31st letter that mr. sutton provided this committee, does indicate that in you mr. honda, you have actually retained s.i.a. consulting to provide engineering or architectural services on some of the projects do you as a developer. my question there is -- this can

be part of the exploration city attorney does -- did you pay the full rate for those services? were you given a discount or were any services performed for free? >> again, chair peskin, i've hired the llc, hired s.i.a. consulting on three separate occasions. no discount was offered to us. we paid the standard normal fee they would charge any client. as such with -- [ indiscernible ] >> chair peskin: then, in the letter where there is the

admission of the oversight with regard to the duncan matter. may be this is a misstatement or may be i'm reading it incorrectly. this is on page 8 under the commissioner honda's legal duties on the third paragraph. i think this may be a question for mr. sutton, it says in the duncan matter, mr. honda was not aware at the time of the vote that s.i.a. consulting worked for the property owner in the past. he was not aware when he joined in the unanimous vote that he received income from an owner of 11.5 months earlier. the word owner there was confusing to me. as i tried to establish earlier, one of the responses that you

have made in this is that regardless of the financial relationship between principles of s.i.a. and mr. honda n no event were the owners, the real parties in interest, have had paid mr. honda in the previous 12 months. here you used the word owner. can you explain that? >> thank you for pointing out too many clauses. we're referring to the owners at s.i.a. consulting. >> chair peskin: got it. that jumped out at me. let me jump a little bit to

something that was raised in the unsolicited letter that was part of the file that comes from jerry dradler. , i have done fess, as to his allegations about the alleged improper issuance of a certificate of compliance or certificate of certificates of compliance, i frankly didn't really understand that. i'm not a lawyer or claim to be an expert. it did raise other issues around form 700 that led me to do some very cursory quick research on the form 700 that are available for everybody to see. i wanted to ask commissioner honda, a few questions with

regard to his form 700. for each of those years, amended it to show a source of income in excess of $10,000 for a commission for the sale of real property. what i wanted to understand -- let me ask you this, mr. honda, you're a realtor. you done that for more than 20 years?

>> correct. >> chair peskin: i know every year is different, how many properties do you sell in an average year? >> as i gotten older and in my late 70s and 50s, i'm down to about a dozen a year, myself personally. in the early 2000, it will be around 40 to 50 a year. >> chair peskin: i assume, given what property is worth in this town, that the average commission even when you split it with the other brokers involved is more than $10,000? >> correct. >> chair peskin: why you doing a dozen a year in your middle-age, less than you did when you were a younger? are you only listing four sales in four years.

i don't understand that. >> i was unaware that i had to submit my form 700 transactions where i received more than $10,000. i believe what happened was after the jerry dradler case on 17th avenue, was reported to the ethics department. the ethics contacted me said that my form 700 incorrect. at that point, i retained counsel to go through all my transactions. >> chair peskin: i get that part. what i don't get why why you only reported 4 when you dozen or 40 a year. >> i haven't done 40 in a long time. i reduced my workload quite a bit. i have a team of six agents that pretty much i manage and help

them do their products. as i gotten further down the road here, decided to not do as much real estate. >> chair peskin: what you are representing is that between 2017 and 2020, you only as set forth in the four amendments that you filed on october 14, 2021, you only had four real estate transactions in that period of time where were in excess of $10,000 of commission? >> it's five or six. it varies every year. >> that's per year. that's not for the total. i believe we made an amendment for that. for me to get that information, we went to the management of the broker that i work for. they pulled up all the

information that was on file. then i handed that to my attorney jim sutton. then he at that point, completed the forms. >> -- supervisor peskin, i understand your question. the difference between a dozen deal than 5 or 6 on the form 700. we'll follow-up with darryl. we'll make certain they contain all the commissions here and every year. >> chair peskin: okay. there other real estate brokers who serve on other commissions that require the filing of form 700s. they all -- i shouldn't say all,

to my knowledge, they had several pages that would list out each and every year, every commission he received over $10,000. it's nice to know that after nine years commissioner honda has realized that this is information that has to be disclosed. the reason for disclosure -- this isn't a gotcha thing, that gives the public as well as the commissioner who claims to very carefully look at every one of his business relationships before votes at the quasi judicial body board of appeals, it gives them to know that.

if you doing a dozen deals -- let me ask you this, commissioner honda. what is the standard industry practice for a real estate commission on sale of residential property? >> as far as what? 2.5%. >> chair peskin: to each broker? >> correct. >> chair peskin: 2.5% to the buyers broker and seller broker? >> 7% total. >> chair peskin: what's the average size of a deal? >> 1.7. >> chair peskin: what's 2.5% off 1.7?

>> $40,000 i think. >> chair peskin: more than 10. assuming that you are doing 12 deals a year or 6 deals a year or 8 deals a year and the average is 1.7 and indeed, your own website in 2017 alone lists two sales in excess of $3 million that closed in that calendar year on your website. your commission at 2.5% was significantly more than $10,000. it's not good that you never listed these but you listed four of them for a period of four years three months ago. just basic logic tells me that you haven't listed dozens of them. i needed to say that for the record. the certificates of compliance are beyond me. i don't really understand that

part of mr. dradler's letter. i think that's an important thing. i'm sorry to ask, i mean that sincerely, these questions publicly. i would be remised not to do so. talk about people's money, it is personal. mr. honda, are all of your financial investments only in real property? >> yes. >> chair peskin: you have no stocks? >> no stocks. no 401. >> chair peskin: i wanted to establish that you never filled out schedule-a. then, mr. dradler does point out

that -- this may be well beyond the period that you would have to go back and file an amendment, he does point out that in 2015, a period where you filed your form 700s a year and approximately 4 months rate that you reported no reportable interest on any schedules. yet, the year before the 2014 year, you list half dozen ownership and half dozen properties in the year after in 2016. for the 2016 year you listed half dozen properties. what happened in 2015 that you listed no reportable schedule -- reportable interest on any schedules? >> what happened was, i got contacted. i thought i had submitted all the correct forms. i got contacted by the ethics

commission that it was not filed. i believe that was the year that they switched from it being faxed to online. i'm the least i.t. compatible guy except for the iphone. i thought that was submitted correctly. when the ethics department contacted me and then my director contacted me, we submitted the form. >> chair peskin: there are other questions i could ask. one i wanted to point out, which is one of the things that the form 700s require that when you acquire reportable interest, real property, stocks, you must report when you acquire them and

when you dispose of those financial interest, you have to report when you disposed of them. one can do the deduction -- in so far as real property is pretty easily trackable -- i will note that in 2020, 438 ceases to show up on your form 700. clearly it will tell you why. you got to report that you sold it. it doesn't just disappear off your form 700s i'm sure that's an innocent reporting mistake.

i wanted to point that oversight out. form 700s are important. the city attorney of san francisco will actually review your draft 700s before you file them. i don't know if colleagues, if you have any questions or comments. i will turn it over to you colleagues. president walton. >> supervisor walton: i have two questions. commissioner honda how long have you been serving on board of appeals? >> i was nominated and appointed

in november 2011 for less than four-year term. when that term ended, i was renominated. i was nominated by mayor ed lee then i was renominated again by then mayor ed lee for an additional four terms. that term ended in 2000. i was then nominated by the board of supervisors then president norman yee to serve four years at that time. >> supervisor walton: i believe you mean 2020. >> sorry. yes. >> supervisor walton: when did this term end? >> i believe in 2024. >> supervisor walton: thank you. that's all i have.

>> chair peskin: thank you president walton. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you chair peskin. thank you president walton and chair peskin for convening this calling and having this hearing. i don't have anything particularly to ask. this case very much, i think, goes to kind of attention in having people who are intimately involved in development and real estate on these bodies that oversee real estate development. there's sort of baked into the chartered provisions around building commission. which i know chair peskin, you and i agree may be off change. there's still this notion we want to have people who have

direct immediate experience, we know what's going on will know what -- will know the impact what they are doing. they live it and work it and see it every day. on the other hand, when we put people in these roles who are in their day-to-day work, doing real estate developments, we can move around what the lines are requiring -- we can do some of this at the state legislature. we can move the disclosure and require this or that, you can't have this kind of relationship. ultimately, there's going to be, i think a perception of potentially, perception of a problem in that folks are making money off of things that are very close to the things they are being asked to adjudicate on these bodies.

i don't know what the right answer is. i know what the right answer is on the building commission. there's a real tension there between these two values. that's just a thought i'm having in morning. thanks. >> chair peskin: thank you. supervisor mandelman. yes, i think you are touching on something that's important for us to really think about. it does what you have those relationships actually create environment where in commissioner honda's case, if you add together the recusals

and the disclosures, it's a huge number. i appreciate the fact that he is doing what required under the law. i will mention that as set forth in mr. sutton's letter, recusing himself in all situations is clearly the safest course of action. i would pause it, do so respectfully, commissioner honda has not always taken the safest course of action. what the letter lays out, mr. honda we're checking to see within 12 months. he missed one, kind of sort of. it's not like every time the rubin firm stands up or every time s.i.a. is involved, he does that. it says in the letter, it goes back and sees whether or not he has to disclose or whether he has to recuse.

the advice about recusing itself in all situations as the safest course of action is not necessarily been respectfully honda's ammo. i want to ask one other uncomfortable question which has been the subject of some media attention. i believe it's the subject of some litigation which is allegations and whistleblower case that has become public by a former board of appeals staff, paralegal with regard to the allegation of removal of information from a file by the commissioner. can you shed some light on that matter mr. honda? >> sure. as far as that particular matter is concerned, i believe it happened in 2019. for the people that are watching as commissioners, we are not

involved in the day-to-day hiring, firing a omicron varianr body. we are voluntary civil servant that show and do the brief. we have nothing to do with the employees of our particular boards. i was unaware of this matter until it got released to press that a member that worked as a legal aid of board of appeals was fired. i was not aware any of the allegations until it was in the papers. when i heard the allegations, i called my director who's on this zoom call now and asked her what was the situation. she said that a staff member had been fired. i was not a party to any of that

information. i was not party to her firing. there was no need for them to let me know any of the particulars on the case. i read through the media she had accused me of removing a text that was, i believe, in the dennis richards case where it says, yo bro, what's going on. it's ridiculous. when dennis richards came --before us, that information ws released. nor could i have removed it from the files. i'm not involved with the day-to-day operations of the board of appeals. the fact that information was already released -- their attorneys had it. everyone had it. there will be no reason for me

to remove it nor would i. that text, unfortunately is still on my phone to this day. >> chair peskin: i don't want to put words in your mouth, simple yes or no question, have you ever removed any file or information from any file at the board of appeals? >> absolutely not. >> chair peskin: thank you. uncomfortable question. i felt that it needed to be asked and answered. thank you for that candid response. colleagues, before we open this up to public comment and having consulted president walton who brought this item before this committee, it would be my suggestion that we give our counsel and counsel for mr. honda the opportunity to

figure out how those documents that president walton asked to be produced be made available for us to see in some form or fashion. understanding that there is proprietary information and confidential information to be respected. i ask that we continue this item to the call of the chair while the attorneys are figuring that out. with that, why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: mr. chair, operations checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. please call star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. it appears we have two callers

with one person in line to speak. >> caller: supervisors, i think this corruption or kind of corruption appeared before mr. honda many times. given my comment on other cases. we need to fine tune the form 700 for everybody. i can name many people. kimberly blandin, lynnette suite, chris jackson -- even

your president of the board. don't you think that we advocates are stupid. we have access to the freedom of information act. we collect documents and we know how this process works. my thing is, we need a person, we need somebody in the ethics commission to go beyond call of duty to put things on track. including with the board of supervisors. nitpicking like this is not good. we already lot of divisiveness in our community. like now, i know a person is creating divisiveness. when i worked for 40 years in the bay view. you supervisors don't know that

chronologically. i wanted -- i do know mr. honda. i'm not saying he's a saint. >> clerk: speaker time has expired. >> chair peskin: any other members of the public on this item? >> clerk: one more person has jumped in. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> caller: good morning, this is david pilpel. i'm choosing not to weigh in on this particular matter in substance at this time. although, i'm very fascinated by the concepts and the details here. i did want to observe that in my

experience with d.b.i. and plan and to some extent board of appeals, various forms call for a signature of either an appellant project sponsor or agent. it's not consistent across the various departments as to an agent authorization where there's an agent on behalf of a property owner project sponsor and perhaps that's something that could be examined in connection with this or separately. it also doesn't always make clear where an owner or a representative is with a firm or an l.l.p. or l.l.c., who the principle is.

so you have entities like 1000 market street associates or something like that. it's not clear who the people are involved. if there's a way to make that more transparent between those agencies, ethics form,eth, we might be better served. that's my thought on this at this time. i do not weigh in on the particulars with regard to commissioner honda at this point. thank you for listening. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public for public comment on this item? >> clerk: that completes our list of public commenters on this matter. >> chair peskin: public comment on this item is closed. president walton, any last

words? >> supervisor walton: again, i want to thank you chair peskin for deliberating over this process. thank you commissioner honda for submitting a portion of the documents requested. i want to 100% agree with supervisor peskin, we need to find out from both parties attorney how we're going to furnish the rest of the documents that were requested so we can move forward and get all the information needed. i appreciate this hearing today and i stand by your motion. >> chair peskin: all right. thank you president walton. mr. sutton, our counsel will be in touch with you. you guys will figure out whatever the right path is for us to see what we need to see. namely all those listing agreements and things -- sound like, we're able to locate many of them.

city attorney office will be in touch to figure that out. with that, like to make a motion to continue this item for the time being to the call of the chair pending resolution of that matter. on that motion, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call vote]. the motion passes without objection. >> chair peskin: all right. why don't we see mr. honda and mr. sutton, item number 2. >> like your suit there, chair peskin. >> chair peskin: thank you. it's an old jacket and old tie and trying impress. [ laughter ]

item 2. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. i do have an response for you. it may not be as crisp as you would like. the reason it did take a minute is because there's really no static number due to the fact that it would depend on what type of insurance plan a commissioner would like. the city allows a few options with several healthcare providers. i will say, going on the san francisco health services website, the cost for the city is at its lowest contribution from the city, $307.32. that's for the least expensive plan. it ranges up to $399.80 for the most expensive plan. city who partake in the insurance plan, pick a different type of insurance plan, costs will vary. those are the ranges.

>> chair peskin: it sound like if you do the math, maximum if everybody close the most expensive health plan and everybody chose it's about $100 a year. thank you for that. sorry for not giving all heads up, i was going to ask the question. >> supervisor walton: that is perfectly good to know and have an answer for moving forward. >> chair peskin: may be it will come up tomorrow at the full board. on a motion made by this chair to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend as committee report. [roll call vote] the motion passes without

objection. >> chair peskin: we are adjourned. adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their

shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate

that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community

>> remote meeting of the san francisco court of appeals. president honda will be presiding officer tonight and

he's going by commissioner swig, lazarus and chang. we expect commissioner lopez shortly. we will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. on board is the board's legal assistant and i am julie rosenberg, executivedirector. we will be joined by representatives from the city department that will be presented before the court . the zoning administratormatthew green,senior building inspector for the department of building inspection . guidelines are as follows . the board with cholesteatoma all phones and electronic devices so they will notdisturb the proceedings . appellants permit holders and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case . people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven minutes periods. members not affiliated have up to two minutes each just before and no real. mister long way will give verbal warnings 30 seconds before your time is up .

for both are required to grant or determination . if you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email board staff and board of appeals at sfgov.org. access is of paramount importance and every effort has been a to replicate the hearing process. to enable public participation we are broadcasting industry in this era live and we will have the ability to receivepublic comments for each item on today's agenda we are also providing close captioning for this meeting . what's the hearing go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcaston channel 26 . alive stream is on the homepage of our website . now public comments can be provided in 2 ways. one youcan join the zooming by computer, go to our website and click on the leading the or you

can call him by phone . 1-669-900-6833 and her id 822 6851 3235. and again, we are broadcasting and streaming the phone number and theseinstructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the broadcast . first dial á67 and thephone number . listen to the public comments portion of your item and donald start nine which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. will be sought and when it is your turn. you may haveto die dark 6 on yourself . you will have three minutes to speak. our legal assistant will provide you with a warning 30 secondsbefore your time is up . note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is live streamed on tv therefore it is important people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvsor computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting . any participants are attending need disability accommodations

or technical assistance you can make a request to us conway reports legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals at sfgov.org. the chat function cannot be used toprovide public comments or opinions . now we will affirm all those who intend to testify. note any member may seek without taking an oath pursuant to their rights underthe sunshine ordinance . if you plan to testify tonight's proceedings and the board. your evidence way raise your hand and say i do after you've been sworn in order for. you swear the testimony you're about to will be the truth, truth and nothing but the truth ? >> i do. >> if you're a participant and you're not speaking your speaker on mute and we are now on to item number one, special . consideration of production of resolutions which makes findings to allowteleconference meetings under california

government code 54953 80 . >> president: iwould make a motion to accept that . >> a public comments on the motion to this resolution? if so please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment period on this motion, i believecommissioner lopez . >> i am here, i. >> commissioner lopez. [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the resolution is adopted. item number two general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak on the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. anybody here for general public comments, pleaseraise your hand . i don't see any hands raised so we will go on to item number three, commissioner comments and questions. >> i like to wish everyone a

happy new year and may 2022 the easier and more pleasant than 2021and welcome commissioner lopez, happy new year to you . >> is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. there is no public comment so we will want to item number 4 whichis adoption of the minutes . we have before you adoption of the minutes of the september 15 21 meeting. >> president: unless we have any additions may i have a motion tothose minutes into the record . >> i would love to makethat motion . >> we have a motion from vice president swig to adopt the minutes. any comment on that motion? given that there's no public comment on thatmotion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the minutes are

adopted. we are now moving on to item number five which is appeal number 21 104, presley versus apartment building inspection. subject property is 2736 20 street. appealing missions to lost resorts of an alteration permit installation of permanent framing for one seasonalfabric sunshade in rear patio, sunshade to be installed annually in the rainy season . this is permit number 2021 / 10/28/1322. mister presley, you have seven minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to you tonight. my name is todd presley and i'm asking the board torevoke the patio awning the lost resort because of the increased noise it creates in my neighborhood inside my home .

for background the new ordinance as force me to make extensive market modification to the bars patio increasing its size, replacing a formerly solid wall with a wiremeshwall and removing a long-standing coloring over the patio . november 2021 vote lost resort installed the current awning which is a significant gap between the top of the wall and the awning itself which is oriented in such a way that directs and amplifies the patio noise towards neighboring home including mine on york street . you can see the extent of the patio modifications of the bar before it was remodeled and afterwards in the exhibit i submitted i canshare now that's awful . i will do that quickly here. great. this first photo is the current outside wall which faces york street. it's west facing.

just to show you some of the modifications that were made. versus what thebarn is to look like along this wall which you cansee was a solid wall . the awning now currently looks like this . thisis from my , the front of my house with the steps looking towards the bars patio. you can see it is an awning essentially has a large opening over the patio which this is what funnel sounds towards my home. versus what it used to looklike . this is essentially looking at the same wall that i just showed you. it's justfrom inside the former patio before it was modified . you can see the covering is solid. there is no gap between the wall and the awning itself . i will stop sharing now. the effects is the bar patio

noise is regularly audible inside my home seven days a week. therefore i'm asking that the permit be revoked or if the board doesn't feel that revocation is warranted, i asked babar he was required to work with its neighbors and make modifications to their patio and the awning in order to mitigate the noise from their patio so that it isno longer audibleinside our homes . thank you for your time . >> thank you. so i don't see any questions at this point. we will hear from the permit holder. i'm not sure, is mister valentine here? >> i am. >> you have seven minutes. serve. >> thank you for your time. as the appellants todd mentioned we have opened in 2019 after the remodel of the

long-standing location. that is lost resort and it's been a restaurant and bar in this location for almost 100 years . we were targeting to replace theprevious awning with the awning that we , that and the goal of replacing it is that during the winter months in particular especially in the last few weeks we have heavy rain and a place that basically if it's not replaced there's no one foranyone to sit in an outside environment . we opened in the middle of a pandemic which we now believe unfortunately it's an end and. the ability for us to see people outside his parentus for our ability to survive . more so now than ever. our goal is not to open when this is happening but itis a reality now . we did reach out to the appellants. we reached out to other neighbors.

no other neighbors expressed concern or issue with this noise. and as requested by the appellants we would happily work with them to develop a process and a plan to blockany noise going towards them if the design is notworking on illinois. that's not our goal . our goal is to serve our neighborhood and be a great neighbor . there's been probably 12 or more times where various agencies have come out which have been told to us by one complainants calling the abc which has the ability to regulate and monitor our noise and if we are about our noise limits they can issue petitions. they've come out. the last time they came out was a couple saturdays ago with the awning in place " was passing carsare lower than the noise from the business . the entertainment commission has come out a number of times.

all these visits are unannounced. the entertainment commission in their hearing which the meeting minutes were provided as part of our brief, they de-prioritize any complaints with regard to our location because every time they come out there have been no noise issues that weren't any action on the entertainment commissions part. both entertainment commission and abc have the ability to monitor our noisewe monitor our noise . my business partner brad is their most nights and our business has been instructed to shut down the patio around 10:00 and we close the patio soon after . because if they are telling guests that they are making noise to please the client . some of them we live with and we care about deeply. we don't want to be a nuisance this isour livelihood . where not aroundbusiness . we are a neighborhood location. the rest of this area as destination places and we tried

to be a place for the kids, for the family to come by people have told usthe only place they feel comfortable sitting outside is in this environment . i would reiterate we would be happy to do anything we can and that was our goal of reaching up to the house to makethis an environmentthat works for all our neighbors . is there anything you want to add ? >> you know, primarily we want to be a neighborhood spot where everyone to the left, right, front and back and enjoy with their families, friends and feel like they are in a safe place. i personally am on the floor when i do see other guests that are kind of being loud, i do try to tell them to calm down. it's not in my interestto make anyone around us uncomfortable . and we've mentioned before that

we would be more than happy to help dampen the soundthe best we can . i've spoken to their closest neighbors and they come to us saying we can talk aboutit . i hope that this situation, we could have a conversation over this other than the moment we aresitting in . but we are just a friendly, family-friendly neighborhood spot for everyone to come enjoy and with that patio awning that helps everyone stay safe in this environment as well as keeping everyone drive during the rainyseason and that's why we hope to keep it . >> are you finishedwith your presentation ? >> president: vice president swig. >> thanks very much.

i very much understand living in the city presents us with all sorts ofnoise opportunities . and the reality is of a restaurant which has been there for a longperiod of time continuing business . it's one of those opportunities that the neighborshave to put up with . there seems to have been based on the testimony there were some changes, physical changes made to the building that may have changed the sensitive direction of the sound . may have inadvertently amplified the sound because of the boost exchange or whatever. i am certainly not an expert in that area although i'm awareof it and have been in similar situations . can you tell me was there any

formal initiative taken to measure literally measure the sound and to see how many decibels were now coming out of the awning whereas before obviously there were less because it was a solid wall therebut is there a measurement of decibels and if there has been , does that decibel level needs city standards? >> the answer to that question is yes. when the abc department and entertainment commission came out they do a measurement of ambient noise and that is where we had no citationissued or complaints issued by either

party because we were not above are requiredlimit . i believe what the appellantsis stating is there's two things . one is the solid wall is not there anymore to , there's a gap in the roof which points down towards them. and we have not done a measurement with the awning on and off to see if there's a difference and one of the things my business partner said we're happy to make the investment in ensuring this is not worse when the awning is in place.we need to make sure the permit gets approved as opposed to spending money and havingthe awning permit not been approved and we expect more money and not be able to do it if that makes sense . >> have you been advised by professionals as to how sounds might be mitigated during the time that the condition when there seems to be the most noiseexists ? with acousticmaterials or other tactics ? >> the answer is we have not

engaged in a professional acoustic engineer at this point. we believe we have solutions we canimplement with regard to the gap in the awning . there's a sound acoustic panel you can put in place that would enableair to travel through but notdown is our understanding . we be happy to implement those things . we're more than willing to look at options.we discussed internally like the ability to put some plastic over the wall. our goal is to also make sure publishing the ability to be safe in an environment, that were not liking aaron so we need to work to find a solution that works for usas well as our neighbors . >> i understand your intention and your challenges and appreciate those sentiments. thanks, that's allfor me . >> you, we will nowhear from the planning department .

>> good evening president honda and members of theboard . deputies owning administrator, 2736 20 is in the arts to zoning district. a property located on a 2200 where like to order lot at the northeast corner of york and 20th. built in 1895 the main two-story mixed-use building at the corner while the one-story structure sits at the rear along york street. based on survey valuations to the property the main building was heavily altered and we can find that such property was determined to not be a historic resource. records show the commercial use on the ground floor more specifically the bar and restaurant use is the existence of the 1960s and as such the property is considered limited for nonconforming commercial use in the residential distric . the area between the main building and the detached structure has been used as an outdoor patio /dining area for

the restaurant. given the long-standing restaurant and bar news on the property outdoor patio is considered a grandfather for lawful activities use that is part of the property. the permit is to install permi framing in the outdoor patio to accommodate the use of the seasonal campus . given the location as a patio area has been the physical area of the lot that is not considered apermanent structure and the proposed project does not trigger trigger neighborhood notifications . the permit holder and the appellant have been notified there was aprevious patio cover of some sort in the same location . while noise is a primaryissue for the appellants planning code does not regulate noise or say . article 29 of the francisco police code otherwise known as the noise control ordinance generally do allow for atypical noise associated with restaurant use operations and doesnot find it to be excessive

or a violation . having that said to the business operator who wishes to redesign or find a patio cover would address any potential noise impact to the residence theplanning department be supported . however as it stands the permit installed a new framing for the patio cover was properly reviewedby the planning department . the scope of work was confirmed by the zoning administrator to be compliant with the planning and section 311 for notification. thisconcludes mypresentation . if there is any questions . >> thank you, i don't see any questions at this time we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> that evening president honda and members of the board. matthew green representing tbi. this permit was approved by planning , approved over-the-counter by the building and health department and was issued on november 9,

2021. we believe the permit was approved and issued properly however as with planning the permit holders are willing to make some changes to support those i'd be happy to answer any questions . >> i don't see any questions at this time so we will move on to public comment. is there anyone who would to provide public comment? please raiseyour hand. if you call him pressá9 and that will show us you would like to speak . i see the phone numberending in 6149, go ahead . you may need to press á62 b unmuted. phone number and in 6149, press start 62 onmute your self . >> caller: hello. >> welcome.

please go ahead, you have 3 minutes. >> caller: and i speaking? okay. disregard the awning application for the bar or restaurant lost resorts at the corner of 20th and york. i'm a nearby neighbor and i'm currently with thebar although i've never been in . i want to give all support to the lost horizon, the lost resorts establishment to end or erect a permit for their awnin . i see no reason why this would be an impediment to anything but rather the whole bar by the way although i've never been for drinks, i don't think bars but it's a wonderful establishment . i enjoy the activity and i fully support the owners and

operators of lost resorts. it's a well-run organization and i just want togive my full support for whatever application may have regarding their awning . i've had numerous this licenses throughout san francisco over the last 40 years and50 years actually so i know a little bit about applications for permits . so that's the just of what i want to support. >> we are now moving on to the fellow whose phone number ends with9934. please go ahead . you may need to press á62 unmute. >> my name is the old gordon calling in to address the appeal and the lost resorts

patio. and a homeowner across the street at 810 york street and lost resorts is a great neighborhoodbusiness . it's aunique small business . it has a vitality to the neighborhood. they felt a lot to increase th neighborhood character and give us a place to gather . as someone wholives across the street i never hear noise from the bar . i myself have stopped by for a drink or a bite. i hope that this board and other businesses. [inaudible] it adds to the character of this area.

i've chosen not to eat indoors or drink indoors until things get better ... [inaudible] it's part of my community and i would not want you to take that awafrom the community . don't let one neighbor take it away because of the character it gives to our city . i frequent greatlocal restaurants and other businesses . it's what a lot ofus love about san francisco . [inaudible] if i wanted a very quiet quiet neighborhood i would live in the suburbs. it's what makes san francisco still the city and i hope you allow it to remain that way . please reject the deal and allow this going forward. >> we will now be from the

caller whose number ends in 5189. please go ahead. 9489. yes, go ahead. >> my name is jeremy and i've lived in san francisco for 17 years now and i am asking you to reject the appeal and approve this project. i think that as we go into recovery, we're going to have a lot of trouble with our small businesses. a lot of them havebeen struggling to hang on and we need to do whatever we can to support them . make sure they can stick around because we really without our small businesses, we lose a lot of what makes francisco san francisco . i think we ended up in a position where we have the default of saying no and adding more and more restrictions on businesses and we need to have

the opposite approach where we take a more permissive approach in general businesses that want to do interesting things that make theircustomers happy. i think if people live in a city , there's some element of expecting you to get along and be willing to accept the diversity of businesses, of people . that's what makes us whowe are as san francisco . so i hope you reject the appeal and allow this business to continue to servetheir loyal customer base . >> thank you. is there any furtherpublic comment on this item ? please raise your hand. i don't see anymore so we will move on to remodel . mister presley, you have 3 minutes. >> the only thing i would say i guess is i want to be clear. i've lived in sanfrancisco since 2003 . i've lived in this house for 70

years and wasfamiliar with the prior bar establishment . i understand what it's like to live in an urban environment i never had an issue with the jmp club. it was fine. i'm just saying the modifications were made to this establishment in particular this awning has significantly magnified the sound to a point where it is truly a nuisance. and i understand all the challenges the bar is facing. i get it. i personally also want to eat outside and sit outside. the bar also has seating in addition to this and we worked with edc during the permitting processand were told that sound should not be audible within our home . that just has not been the cas

particularly with this awning. having said that , i feel like i can see where the tide is going and the last thing i would say is that no outrage has been made from this far to help mitigate this issue. the only moment where they reached out to me was when i appeal this permiti guess i'm a little skeptical that any change will be made . thank you for your time and i appreciate all your dedication and contributions to try to keep the city running well have a good night .>> we will now hear from the permit holder, mister valentine. >> i'd like to speak directly to the appellant and say that i'msorry if you feel we haven't been a good neighbor . that's not the case. we've been struggling to figure

out how to get to the next day and operate a business and stay alive and keep our employees employed and approved our first email will be to you to figure out a way we can work together that creates an awning that will work for you your house and living. it is notour goal to be a nuisance . it's our goal to be a great addition to the neighborhood and i'm sorry ifthat hasn't been something you feel is the case . i didn't know how toreach out to you . we have come to your house a few times and tried to talk about things that we didn't know how to solve the problem and we kept getting things coming through city agencies versus coming to usdirectly and havingconversations . it's something we welcome and we'd be happy to work out a solution . by nomeans do i promise we will be perfect but we will do our best . i hope wecan approve this permit . it's important for our business and ability to stay in operation is something we take seriously with regards to being a good neighbor and everyone on

the stall as my word and brad and i will try to find a solution with regards to acoustical standpoint or blocking off thatpenetrates . we will stop there and go from there and continue to work with todd . aslong as you can have that we are neighbors and we have to work together there'sgoing to be somenoise , we will do our best to get to a place that you can be happy and wecan operate in a successful manner . that's it for me .>> does the planning departmenthave anything further ? >> no further comments . >> how about dbi. >> no further comments. >> this matter is submitted. >> president: i will start first. if you don't mind, we had a bar similar to this afew months ago . the big difference was the use on the back patio was not permitted . the work that was done was non-permitted . and in this particular case,

first of all sound is very tricky . we've heard this through the years. especially when there's alcohol fall. these operators in my opinion have done the right thing and gone the direct path to achieve this permit. it would be nice if the permit holder does honor that agreement and reached out to the appellate after but the entertainment commissioner has been out there, abc has been out there unannounced and on one occasion on saturday evening so in my opinion i believe the permit was issued properly . any othercommissioner would like to comment ? vice president swig. >> vice president: i'd like to take somethingout of your playbook . i agree with everything you said . it's a tough situation and the

slides will change in aphysical structure and do things that are unexpected . i like the attitude of the permit holder and wanting to makethings right . the thing i want to take out of darrell's playbook is a reminder that as we say to all those who have to live together after they come to a hearing like this is that you have to live together aftera hearing like this . have a long life and i hope the bardoes very very well . i hope the appellant lives in peace and and as much quiet as he can get. it will be nice if there was frost between the two parties so i would encourage the permit holder to live up to that promise of reaching out and also investigating measures of insulation and acoustical mitigation under the circumstances.

but i agree with commissioner harness direction. >> president: if anyone doesn't have any comments i will make a motion that we deny the appeal that the permit was issued correctly. >> we have a motion from president honda to deny the appeal on the basisit was properlyissued . on that motion, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520. thank you. we are now moving on to item number six, appeal number 21 103 cityview restaurant incorporated versus department of building inspection. property is 665 clay street and

662 commercial street. appealing the issuance on october 29, 2021 to chinatown community development center of an alteration permit . install ground-floor concrete moment frame on rear wall to complete mandatory unreinforced masonry buildingretrofits under 4099 and associated connections . designed for sf building code 4 a and 4b. correct bolts with a direct irregularities and accessibility upgrade . permit number 2019 10 25 5615. mister legal will be addressing thepoor. you have seven minutes . >> thank you very much. i'd like to clarify it's not our intention to appeal that original 2005 permit. that permit was issued on a cooperative basis after a great deal of back-and-forth and discussion. between both the permit holder

and the restaurant.what we are concerned about is this most recent complete revision of the approach to the seismic work on the commercialstreet side of the building . if we look at the statement from the engineer which is the second page of the calculation sheet perhaps we could screen that at this time. alec, are you ableto do that ? >> you can. >> could you go ahead and put that second page? there we go. this is how the justification was put to the building department in 1991.

to change the permit that had been issued in 2005. to do a wholesale redesign of the seismic work that would directly impact the front of and dining room of the restaurant. i'm not going to have the time to go through in full detail but you will see in our brief that many years ago, this building was sold to the permit holder by mister john yee and at that time negotiations were undertaken under the supervision of judge david

garcia.and an agreement was reached to effectuate the lease terms in the lease between the restaurant and permit holder which require that any construction be carefully considered and that the restaurant ... i'm sorry, that the permit holder use its best efforts not tointerfere with business operations of the restaurant .under that negotiated agreement supervised by judge david garcia , whitney jones and die, the two designated representatives were able to move forward and as this document admits cooperate and i huge event of work that did impact the restaurant for a great deal of seismic work at this building. for reasons that were not explained to us at that time,

see cdc abandoned the job and did not perform the work involving the steel frame on the commercial street frontage. that work had been discussed in considerable detail even to the point of the method andmode of construction , timing, how it would be done and agreed and see cdc 10 years ago abandoned that . now very recently they submit this. and they say that for various reasons that want to change the design from the redesign. and that their justification is that the restaurant was denying them the ability to do the wor . that is simply not true.

we were facilitating the work. we were cooperating all the time and what we were ultimately told very recently was the permit holder ran out of money and that's why that work wasn't finished 10 years ago . our complaint today is that this permit was obtained in part on representations that are untrue. and that without any consideration for the agreement that's negotiated for this entire project which clearly required the permit holder to use its best efforts in designing and doing the work to avoid impacting the restaurant operations so the highlighted paragraph here, the fourth paragraph says for various reasons are design is for a bunch of concrete instead of some nice clean steel beams. a complete change in the most impactful part of the project

with no prior discussion. with the restaurant, no notice to the restaurant. no conversation with the restaurant and when this came to our attention recently after 10 years, over 10years of delay , i said to counsel who wrote the brief on behalf of the permit holder, warned about our agreement. whatare you doing? why are you making this change ? he did not remember the agreement . he asked me to send him a copy so i did and he said okay, we will honor it but they pulled the permit. we did have a meeting. and whitney jones and i for the first timein many years were able to talk again . and i said what's going on? why did you changethe plans ?

i was not able to get an answe . before the permit was full i asked joanna lamb who was the first representative of see cdc to reachout with this information . he said these various reasons, what are the various reasons? we all know this massive concrete construction was the toxic debris that it's going to create and the noise is going to be completely destructive to restaurantoperations . our previous agreement was the steel beams would come in from above. they would be dropped in and contained. it would be a nice clean job and i was never given any answer so i simply think that the whole spirit and purpose of the underlying agreement under which this work was performed was first denied, then ignored and is still being ignored and i believe that this body should

tell the people involved in this to follow their agreement. mediate if necessary. >> thank you mister winkle, we have a question from president honda. >> president: first question, when was the retrofits on this building required ?>> the permit to do it was issued in 2005 . >> president: i said when was the retrofits, is it amandatory retrofit ? >> that was not clear commissioner honda. they thought they had to do it so they were doing it and we were cooperating. i'm not sure that therewas a mandate order for that they were on the list . >> second question is you understand that this board is not here to honor personal

grievancewe're here to determine whether the permit is properly issued, correct ? >> i believe the board has a legitimate interest in whether permit was issued based on mis factual representations and that is the case here . >> we will now hearfrom the permit holder . and the attorney representing the permit holder, welcome. you haveseven minutes . >> actually tyler ferguson will be presenting. >> tyler ferguson on behalf of the chinatown community development center.cityview has filed his appeal as part of a broader scheme to obstruct the cdc's efforts to complete mandatory seismic work. cityview has refused to mediate or cooperate in good faith and has now filed the appeal to by

itself more time before the seismic work begins. cityviewcannot be allowed to continue delaying this necessary work and the board should deny this appeal for three reasons .first, cityview's claims are governed by the parties mediation agreement. second, ccdc's permit was validly issued and the city has not regarded any claim issuing the permit.the permit relates to mandatory structural improvements required to ensure the safety of the building's residents as well as cityview's own guests and employees . my first point, cityview's claims are governed exclusively by the parties needing mediation agreement. cityview admits its own priest at pursuant to the mediation agreement garcia retained restriction over any matter involving the construction of the improvements of the buildings . here cityview isappealing a seismic work permit . seismic work involves constructionimprovements to the buildings . thus by cityview's own

logic.the judge garcia has retained restriction and thus theparties should be in mediation resolving this dispute rather than before the board here today . second, ccdc's permit was validly issued and cityview has not raised any claim of mistake or wrongdoing by thedbi and issuing the permit . rather, this appeal is founded on a breach of contract issue as explained in the one-page statement cityview submitted when this wasinitially filed . looking at that statement, cityview explained it was filing this field caused the plans did not comply with the terms of the parties agreement and because ccdc was required, should have prepared seismic work plans to bothparties . there are two problems with cityview's reasoning. the first is that cityview has based this entire appeal on the terms of the parties agreement rather than any independent grievance with the permits validity this means the parties dispute should be resolved according to the agreement i.e. mediation rather than year

before the court ofappeals . the second problem is that cityview's claims have no actual basis in the parties agreement. they claim both parties were required to agree to a workplan but no such requirement exists in the agreement . ccdc had no obligation to create aworkplan that was mutually agreed-upon . i would address these two problems in turn. by basing this appeal on the settlement agreement's terms cityview clearly wants the parties to be bound by the terms of that settlement agreement yet cityview has seemingly ignored the agreementsdispute resolution clause by refusing and avoiding respondents mediation attempts and by filing this appeal . the parties agreement is clear and in theevent of a dispute the parties are forced to resort to good-faith discussion. if that is unproductive the parties are to appear before judge garcia in mediation . cityview claims the reason it has avoided mediation up till

this point is it feels the parties have had sufficient time to pursue a good fourth faith negotiations these are not endlessnegotiations. the parties have been in discussion for years regarding this work and at this point good-faith negotiations have been exhausted . simply put it is time for the parties to mediate the second problem with cityview's appeal is the agreement does not support their claims. the agreement does not require that ccdc provide a workplan that is mutually agreed-upon butthat ccdc provides cityview with written notice of the scope of work and contractor performing the work . ccdc has done this and has repeatedly notified cityview of the upcoming seismic work. as a result cityview has been on notice for years and ccdc hascomplied with its settlement agreement negotiations. the seismic work should be allowed to proceed . cityview also argues ccdc is required to use best efforts to minimize the disruption to

cityview's operation of the premises that is true. but that does not mean ccdc must then use cityview's preferred solution particularly when that solution is not code compliant.cityview's sole focus in this case is making the seismic work as convenient as possible for its restaurant. indeed the most convenient outcome for cityview in this case is for the seismic work to not happen at all and that is why we are here today. that is also whycityview has refused to efficiently resolve this dispute and why they refuse to cooperate in good faith . cityview fails to recognize sometimes convenience and public safety are two mutually exclusive goals you cannot always have both. ccdc has received a valid code compliant seismic work permit and is ready to begin work . ccdc has no obligation to

create a workplan that was mutually agreed-upon and no obligation to use cityview's preferred solution.cityview has no complaints about the validity of the permit itself and may not be convenient for cityview it is now time for the work to begin finally, the permit describes mandatory work that is necessary to ensure the safety of both the buildingsresidents as well as cityview's own employees and guests . it is unclear aside from convenience why cityview would seekto delay such important work . ccdc has tried to transparently communicate with cityview and keep them involved throughout the process . cityview has responded by repeatedly delaying the process by avoiding ccdc's attempts to efficiently resolve this dispute. in sum, this appeal should be denied. cityview has brought a claim that as required by the parties agreement should be mediated before judge garcia not before the court of appeals . moreover cityview's claims are not supported by the parties agreement. ccdc had no obligation to get

approval before obtainingthe permit. furthermore they had no obligation to use cityview's solution and addressing the seismic work . >> at this point the views of the city's residentsand own guests demand the permit be approved and this appeal be denied so the mandatory seismic work can begin . >> we have a question from president, >> president: you said this is mandatory work, when was this required is mandatory work ? >> i know ccdc received a noticeof violation regarding 2019 plan but i'm not sure of the date . >> that would be interesting and i read on page 11 of the brief that ccdc will use its best efforts to minimize disruption to cityview restaurant but someone mentioned earlier counsel mentioned from 2005 that's teen years. that's quite a long time without any disruption. so i have a fewmore questions

but i'll wait for the apartment . >> we will now hearfrom the planning department . does the planning department want to wait in on this item? i don't believe there was planning department approval so she may have stepped away. we can check in with inspector green. >> hello president honda and commissioners. a brief history of the permits here. the original permit in 2005 017-4019 was for structural seismic improvement of existing low income detail building with concrete replacement. the permit issued on december 20, 2005. they started work may 2006 to startwork inspection . the second and last instruction was in july 2006 for a sheer

wall inspection. the special inspection for the structural work was submitted in august 2016. interestingly the special inspections did include a steel frame. permit expired may 2008. the notice of violation was issued april 2013 for noncompliance with the umb ordinance. it was an order of abatement issued september 2019 or noncompliance with that violation. the permit was actually renewed for final inspection in 2019. the permit under appeal this morning was filed october 2019 to complete and alter the work previously approved in the 2005 permit. this is october29, 2021 . we believe the permit was approved and issued properly. you have some questions about whether umb ordinance came in

place 1992, i'm not quite sure what the level of building it was but the last required deadline was february 2004. >> we have a question from vice president swig. >> to confirm your testimony do you believe this permit application was fully vetted and without hesitation we will say that the permit was issued and it complies to every standard, correct? >> that is correct, it was approved and issued properly. >> vice president: i liketo

deviate and this is important for a bottle . ask brad rossi a question about the proceedings here tonight. with your permission. >> absolutely. >> brad rossi, deputy city attorney. my connection is not very good on not going to turn my camera on but i can hear you. >> i wanted to get clarification as to why we are here. we are here to either to approve or deny a permit which was either properlyissued or improperly issued, is that true ? >> that's right commissioner. >> and that's all. so if there's a dispute between the two parties as to how we got there, how we got here and how the permit was approved that is outside of the evaluation as properly issued

according to thestandards of the building department . none of that really matters. we are here to assess is this a valid permit properly approved, is thattrue? >> that's right commissioner . >> now we're moving on to publiccomment. anyone here would like to provide public comment for this item please raise your hand . this is your opportunity for public comment. i see a few people in the queue. if you want to provide public comment please raise your hand . okay, looks like we do not have any public comment so we will move on to remodel and we will hear from mister winkle, you have three minutes. >> i don't thinki would have made the claim this was an improper permit . my claim is that the building

department was misled. and that the building department should care about that. i have seen many hearings where a little deeper inquiry has been made into the history behind disputes. and that theoverall integrity of the process comes of concern . this in this instance, there are many things being said which are not supported by the facts. there was no delay here caused by cityview restaurant from 2006 to 2019. there is no reason to offer for a deliberate change in 2019 of the construction approaching the manner in which makes it incredibly more damaging, invasive and disruptive of the tenants. the prior approved approach for which a permit was issued should have been the method

used. no explanation has been given for why it should not have been used or why there's a change accept to be disruptive to the restaurant . i think this commission is well aware of the disagreements of recent years between my client john yee and ccdc with regard to other projects. i think that it is clear. that the engineer here was not in fact told to use best efforts to minimize impact. he was probably told exactly theopposite and that's the only reason for the change in the plan and the new approach. if this body is not concerned about such things , that's just lumps we have to take but i do

think thatthis is a more clear problem than it is being presented . >> we have a question from president tran five. >> president: yes counselor. the umb took in effect as the inspector said in 1992. when did the buildingtransfer ownership ? >> you know, i do not have that recollection. i will tell you the building transferred ownership pursuant to ... [audio lost]

>> is it ready? >> it you wanted tostart over. >> a few points of remodel . appellants had agreed previously agreed on approach and i mentioned he's unsure what the various reasons are and why that approach was deviated from . the reason why that we moved from that approach is because what we agreed upon in 2005 is no longer codecompliant . ccdc is concerned with meeting current code standards and any size or retrofit that happens lives up to current code.if we were to implement what was discussed in 2005, that's not code compliant and would live up to today'sstandards . appellants asked how it would impact ccdc to wait months

until cityview closes and i like to remind commissioners that there's a notice of violation on ccdc and they're trying to remedy that and it wouldimpact them because the building issimply not fit for seismic activity right now. it needs to be retrofitted to protect the building's residents as well as the views onemployees and guests . it's beneficial for both parties if the worst happens . one other point of remodel. appellant says there was no delay caused from 2006 to 2019 of those dates are not of concern . we're talking about the current plans that have been trying to get pushed through.the current seismic work that's trying to happen there have been delays during thattime period. just to reiterate the main points here, cityview claims this entire appealis founded on the terms of the settlement agreement . they make no claim regarding

the permits validity orwhether it was properly issued . they feel they did not comply with the agreement's terms but their claims are not supported by the parties agreement . what they suggest is simply not there. and ccdc had no obligation to use ties make work plans that cityview agreed with. it simply had to provide notice to cityview which it did multiple times.this is a permit that relates to mandatorystructural improvements that the building needs for safety of its own residents as well as the safety of cityview'semployees and guests . >> wehave a question from president tran five . >> president: i'm trying to find mymouse . one quick question . in the previous agreement or plan that was done believe it was build a frame move on to a country house. as thedeviation , what part of the work initially is no longer codecompliant? if you have that information available . >> i would have to have duke come in and speak about that.

>> michigan on now?hi, i'm duke chrisfield . there's basically two things. one is that there's become this issue of lateral personal breaking on themoment frame that's been particularly made them , it's made so that you can't do that in buildings with low diagrams. you cannot brace them sufficiently . the other is that there's an element of its required really wasn't addressed with the steel frame which is that where there are beams framing to unreinforced masonry walls or peers that there has to be some

supplemental support for provided and the concept is that is pre-applied shoring in case the brick gives way. and the ways that the steel frames are detached to the existing steel beam across the front really don't provide that sufficient support for that. where the concrete moment frame it really integrates the whole front part of the building and it can't really move. and the moment frame has been designed tofit within the same surround as the steel moment frame and it's really thesame amount of disruption . so we did , i did take that very much into consideration that the destruction aspect exactly and how the work would be done. that's it. >>.

>> president: i'm not an engineer but in essence what you're saying is the steel moment frame does not have a lateral support or ends up being concrete if itprovides that full support . >> that's part of it, yeah. >> thank you. we will now hear from the departmentof building inspection. anything further ? >> thank you. the appellant said the department been misled. i'm notsure where that's come from . revisions andchanges are fairly commonplace . it's not dpi's duty to provide the applicant's motive. i will say if the permit holders had completed the work in the 2005 permit they would havereceived their certificate of final completion and it

would have complied with the notice of violation that's outstandinghere . >> we have a question from vice president swig . >> vice president: to the argument that things have changed, that would be the appellant's argument and to the argument that sorry, to the argument that the permit holder changed the game , change the design which the appellant made and then to the argument which is while the standards by which the project has to be done now have changed, may i have your thoughts on that. who overrules whom on this? if this were there was a plan that was submitted to you that was according to something which was acceptable 20 years ago was presented to you today,

but it was not code compliant, would you honor that plan or would you say to the applicants sorry, that was 20 years ago but we have new and better rules because we have new discoveries that make a project more safe andsecure ? which would outweigh the other please? >> i understand,yes. i would disagree with your statement that has to be done this way . you said, i have the 2005 permit with those structural designs that was started back then and thepermit was reviewed under those 2005 hundreds . if it was it could be built according to those 2005 plans under the renewal permit and get their final inspection

based on that previously approved design it would receive their certificate of final completion. then it would be in compliance with the ul the ordinance that said it wasn't completed so i believe they are ,they're in their rights to change the design here prior to the

>> i be glad to. i think our job is to design withrespect to appellate counsel .and the cityattorney gives our marching orders .

bayview. >> a lot discussion how residents in san francisco are displaced how businesses are displaced and there's not as much discussion how many nonprofits

are displaced i think a general concern in the arts community is the testimony loss of performance spaces and venues no renderings for establishes when our lease is up you have to deal with what the market bears in terms of of rent. >> nonprofits can't afford to operate here. >> my name is bill henry the executive director of aids passage l lp provides services for people with hispanics and aids and 9 advertising that fight for the clients in housing insurance and migration in the last two years we negotiated a lease that saw 0 rent more than doubled. >> my name is ross the executive directors of current pulls for the last 10 years at 9 and mission we were known for

the projection of sfwrath with taking art and moving both a experiment art our lease expired our rent went from 5 thousand dollars to $10,000 a most. >> and chad of the arts project pursue. >> the evolution of the orientation the focus on art education between children and patrol officer artist we offer a full range of rhythms and dance and theatre music theatre about in the last few years it is more and more difficult to find space for the program that we run. >> i'm the nonprofit manager for the mayor's office of economic workforce development one of the reasons why the mayor has invested in nonprofit displacement is because of the challenge and because nonprofits

often commute technical assistance to understand the negotiate for a commercial lease. >> snooechlz is rob the executive director and co-founder of at the crossroads we want to reach the disconnected young people not streets of san francisco for young adults are kicked out of the services our building was sold no 2015 they let us know they'll not renew our lease the last year's the city with the nonprofit displacement litigation program held over 75 nonprofits financial sanction and technical assistance. >> fortunate the city hesitate set aside funds for businesses facing increased rent we believable to get some relief in the form of a grant that helped

us to cover the increase in rent our rent had been around $40,000 a year now $87,000 taylor's dollars a year we got a grant that covered 22 thousands of that but and came to the minnesota street project in two people that development in the better streets plan project they saved us space for a nonprofit organization national anthem and turned out the northern california fund they accepted us into the real estate program to see if we could withstand the stress and after the program was in full swinging skinning they brought up the litigation fund and the grants were made we applied for that we received a one thousand dollars granted and that grant allowed us to move in to the space to finish the space

as we needed it to furniture is for classes the building opened on schedule on march 18, 2016 and by july we were teaching classed here. >> which we found out we were going to have to leave it was overwhelm didn't know anything about commercial real estate we suggested to a bunch of people to look at the nonprofits displacement mitigation program you have access to commercial real estate either city owned or city leased and a city lease space become available there is a $946,000 grant that is provided through the mayor's office of economic workforce development and that's going to go towards boulder the space covers a little bit less than half the cost it is critical. >> the purpose of the

organization trust to stabilize the arts in san francisco working with local agency i go like the northern california platoon fund that helped to establish documents of our long track record of stvent and working to find the right partner with the organization of our size and budget the opportunity with the purchase of property we're sitting in the former disposal house theatre that expired 5 to 10 years ago we get to operate under the old lease and not receive a rent increase for the next 5 to 7 years we'll renting $10,000 square feet for the next 5 to seven years we pay off the balance of the purpose of this and the cost of the renovation. >> the loophole will that is unfortunate fortunate we have buy out a reserve our

organization not reduce the services found a way to send some of the reserves to be able to continue the serves we know our clients need them we were able to get relief when was needed the most as we were fortunate to arrive that he location at the time, we did in that regard the city has been - we've had tremendous support from the mayor's office of economic workforce development and apg and helped to roommate the facade of the building and complete the renovation inside of the building without the sport support. >> our lease is for 5 years with a 5 year onyx by the city has an 86 year lease that made that clear as long as we're doing the work we've been we should be able to stay there for

decades and decades. >> the single most important thing we know that is that meaningful. >> it has been here 5 months and even better than that we could image. >> with the economic development have announced an initiative if ours is a nonprofit or know of a nonprofit looking for more resources they can go to the office of economic workforce development oewd.com slashing nonprofit and found out about the mayors nonprofit mitigation program and the sustainability initiative and find their information through technical assistance as much as how to get started with more fundraising or the real estate assistance and they can find my contact and reach out to me through the circles of the city

through the >> [inaudible] i'm a illustrator by day and a [inaudible] composition teacher. right now i'm practice by transscribing [inaudible] that is what i have been doing the past couple years, teaching myself. california college of the arts, illustration there has really

great teachers. robert hunt, vance story taught me a lot. what i'm working on is a portfolio [inaudible] riding a donkey unicorn in the process. >> my name is dawn richardson and musician, drummer and drum teacher. i guess i would say i started my professional path quh i started playing in bands and teaching drum lesson when i was in college. they were definitely not that many women that would do what is doing. in 198 8 i graduated from cal state los ang and studied mostly classical percussion and music education but at the same time i was in hollywood so played at night in rock bands so was doing two different things. >> the reason i'm [inaudible]

the people. there is a extremely vibrant art community especially arounds the red poppy art house [inaudible] as a artist in the past 2 or 3 years there is a event called the [inaudible] every 3 months a free art music festival that i usually play at and just met so many people. >> i was teaching a little bit and doing odd jobs like waitressing and going at night and playing in bands and meeting a lot of people. i chss in ban that had cool break jz get parts on tv shows or things like that. a friend of mine, we had mutual friends that got signed to a record deal in san francisco called 4 nonblaunds and i addition frd the bands and

moved to the bay area. i think things are different now than 30 years ago, the world evolved a lot. it could be a challenge but have to know how to negotiate everything and sometimeatize is [inaudible] it was great to get to a point where i was just treated like another one of the people, a musician not a female musician and that is always what [inaudible] >> you don't hear stuff on the radio [inaudible] i need to write music [inaudible] be more conscious in their decisions and somehow make that poetic so they will be convinced. i think i will do that. [singing in backgrounds] drawing and writing music since i was a really little kid and fortunate enough to have a good education in art

and parentss who supported me. i hope my life will continue to allow me to do both. >> for me now having all male, female girls, boys students it shows the world has changed a lot and people areope toon open to a lot more than they were in the past. you can get a deep satisfaction from responding a lot of year practicing in one thing and becoming really good at something. sometimes i think that it is better to get lost. you have to practice and become good at what you do, so if you have everything together then go out in the world and do what you do and then i think people weal accept that.

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 10, 2022, meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor. this is our first meeting of the year 2022. may it be better. i am the chair of the committee joined by the vice chair. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to thank the folks at sfgov tv. >> clerk: the committee members

participating in this remote meeting. public access to city services essential and public participation is invited. public comment will be available either on channel 26, 76 and 89 and the call-in number is being streamed. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. you can call the number on your screen, 415-655-0001. again, that number is 415-655-0001. you will be prompted for the meeting i.d. which is 2494 264 6753. again, that number is 2494 264 6753. and then follow to # #. when connected, you will hear

the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listen note only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are from a quiet location, speak clearly and turn down your television or radio. or you can submit comment by e-mailing myselfo: erica.major@sfgov.org comments may be sent to city hall as well. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on january

25 unless otherwise stated. we have interpreters helping with translation. if you can please help with the announcements. [speaking spanish].

>> madam clerk before we move forward with the agenda, i want to make sure that members of the public know that we're calling item 3 out of order today. we're going to call it after item 1. please pay attention to the announcement for when to make

public comment. [speaking spanish]. >> madam clerk, please call item 1ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa. sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality

act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. members of the public can call 415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 2494 264 6753. and then press # #. if you have not already, please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. madam chair. >> chair: thank you very much, madam clerk. we are joined by supervisor hillary ronen who represents this corridor. thank you for being here. do you have a few words? >> yes, thank you so much, chair. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for hearing this item today to designate this building as a san francisco landmark under article 10 of the planning code. i have very brief remarks and i'll turn it over to a colleague for her presentation. newly arrived immigrants first opened casa sanchez as a

tortilla factory. they moved to the mission and established a much-loved family restaurant [indiscernible]. this restaurant helped to establish the strong presence of latinx-opened business. there is an expectation that this restaurant will join soon. [indiscernible] during my first term, my office formalized the structure of cultural districts and a number of cultural districts formed across the city. the specific sites that carry

the history and legacy of these districts are crucial recognizing that tangible and intangible elements are important contributors to the historical assets of the city. because of the leadership of this district, 24th street east of mission street has continued to be a high-concentration corridor. the street hosts carnival and other festivals. while this restaurant has moved to a larger production space, the building still houses a latinx restaurant and the iconic sign remains. much thanks goes to the latino historical society and for those leading the charge to recognize and protect the historical

contributions of the latinx community for san francisco's rich culture. i ask for your support to move this to the full board with recommendation for approval. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, supervisor ronen. this makes me so happy. supervisor peskin, did you want to say something before the next presenter? >> i did. in addition to the others, i would be happy to affix my name as a co-sponsor. i want to note the association of the sanchez family not only with north beach but a latino community in north beach set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the fact sheet, not only in association with our lady of

guadalupe church, but the -- that used to be the entire latin quarter. i never heard of this nightclub. i'm going to do more research on that. hats off on this case report and for the landmarking. i am happy to be a part of it. >> chair: thank you. i heard also that supervisor peskin wants to learn to dance bonda. welcome, ms. lavali. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. if you could bring up my presentation. i have a few slides. before you is the ordinance

recommending approval for casa sanchez. in 2017, the historical organization added this to their work plan. in coordination with the property owner and the latino historical society, the preservation commission voted to initiate the landmark designation of this building at their january 2021 hearing. casa sanchez is located mid-block on the north side of 24th street in the heart of the commercial quarter of the latin latino district. this is a two-storey commercial building home to the restaurant from 1968 to 2011. this is the third location of a multi-generation family business that was founded in 1924, as

mentioned by supervisor ronen. the casa sanchez company is believed to be the longest-operating tortilla and tamale factory. recommendation on the proposed landmark designation was heard on october 6, 2021. the commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark this designation, finding that casa sanchez is historically significant for association with the family business that dates to the 1920s and with development of the larger latinx community particularly with that of the business district. this is recommended as being 1968 to 2011 of the period of significance, marking the tenure

of the restaurant in the building. thank you to bob sanchez and the sanchez family for encouraging and supporting this designation and also reiterating the comments to the historical society for their research and documentation in support of this designation. thank you and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. colleagues, do we have any other questions or comments before we move on to public comment? >> i just wanted to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and please add me as a co-sponsor as well. >> add me too, please. the sanchez family has been so supportive of this area and really all the businesses in the

corridor. let's go to public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we have six listeners. can you unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is woody labounty from san francisco heritage. since 1961, heritage's mission is to preserve and enhance san francisco's unique cultural and architectural identity. san francisco heritage was previously heavily involved in pushing casa sanchez for listing

as a historical place. we definitely support this significant association with the history of san francisco's mission district and the city's latinx communities and culture. we celebrate and support casa sanchez. we definitely support its nomination at the landmark and recommend it for approval. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. let's take the next caller, please. >> this is marta sanchez. nice to see everybody online. usually i have something to say, but this time i'm filled with emotions of all the memories i had growing up in the mission and on 24th street and all of the things we've been doing. everybody has participated in

everything and i'm very proud to be proud of casa sanchez and the mission district. supervisor peskin, i'm really sorry you missed out on [indiscernible] because those are some good moments. i want to thank you for honoring us. it is not just my cultural -- it is who i am. it is not just something i do but something we are. we started this first factory in the country means so much more than just being part of the family. i love that casa sanchez is here to stay. that means so much to me. i'm honored and thank you. >> clerk: chair melgar, can i make a quick comment. to further highlight this family's connection to casa sanchez, you can pretty much

find marta any day of the week at the testing/vaccine site at cap and 24th street. she was there when i got my shots, when my daughter got her shots, when we got tested. it's this family's connection to the mission community and to the area in particular is profound and long lasting. so community serving. marta, thank you for your community work. >> in fact, i just saw her yesterday. >> clerk: one more caller in the queue. let's take that caller. >> this is the founding member of the san francisco historical society. we are in the final

[indiscernible] input from members and the city spanned over 60 years who are documenting the san francisco latino community history in first voice. i note the community has been a voice in this community for over 150. casa sanchez was one of those businesses. by approval the landmarking of casa sanchez, it will be one of the first properties in san francisco to be listed for the association with mexican american history. in california's 1988 state-wide survey, the 10 mexican historic sites were identified potentially listing in the national registers. none have been listed to date. so by doing this today, you're making a bold statement.

so i want to thank you. supervisor peskin, on the question of sinaloa, there has been a lot of research on that. i think we should set up a meeting so we can chat about those businesses. and my research, i've done a lot in north beach before the borders changed as well as after from the tamale vendors as well as the first tamale business that was recognized by the international world fair. thank you for taking this into consideration and i hope you approve it. >> i may add that tomorrow's board of supervisors is actually voting on a resolution to encourage that the planning department pursue after it's been on their list for quite a while the north beach survey.

i will make sure that the folks who are doing that avail themselves of all the historic information that you have that should definitely be included in that document if it has not already done so. >> clerk: thank you, supervisors. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the board with positive recommendation? there it is, supervisor peskin. madam chair, if we could close public comment. >> chair: public comment is now closed. thank you. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: on the motion to item 1. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: congratulations, supervisor, that motion passes.

madam clerk, let's call item 3 now, please. >> clerk: item 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require landlords pursuing certain types of evictions to first provide their tenants written notice and an opportunity to cure, unless the eviction is based on an imminent health or safety issue or the non-payment of covid-19 rental debt; and making findings that the eviction protections in the rent ordinance are more protective than those found in state law pursuant to california civil code, section 1946.2. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. again, that number is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. today is 2494 264 6753. then press # #. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak for item 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have an interpreter helping us with translation. if you can please call item 3.

[speaking spanish].

>> thank you so much. madam chair. >> chair: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor peskin, thank you so much for introducing this item. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair, and thank you for finding room on the calendar for us which is always a challenge. i appreciate you holding this hearing today. colleagues, the board of supervisors has really come together to ban most evictions with limited exceptions for health and safety throughout the pandemic, at least to the maximum extent we could under state law. we did this as a public health measure, but it's become even

clearer that making eviction a last resort is beneficial for all of us and not just a good idea during and as a response in covid, but also more permanently for the future of our city. in that spirit before us today is the eviction diversion ordinance. under the simple but impactful proposal, before serving a three-day eviction notice, a landlord would be required to give a tenant a 10-day warning, allowing the tenant the opportunity to correct the behavior that could lead to eviction. eviction should really be auto tool of last resort and all too often three days really flies by and tenants are in a position where they could have come up with rent money or otherwise solved the dispute with the

landlord, but they simply don't have enough time to access the resources and help that they need. our laws are very harsh. a landlord can commence the eviction process just three days later, even if with the tenant comes up with the rent or cures the breach of contract on the fourth day. so an additional 10 days would really be a game changer. advocates have predicted this would save thousands of san franciscans who would otherwise lose their homes. i just want to emphasize that the fact is as a society we don't resolve any other dispute like this. you know, home foreclosures, consumer debt, car repossession s, you name it, in no other situation discuss someone have three days before losing their home and property.

for some reason and beyond the reasons for our discussion today, for some reason our system accepts three days as disputes leading to people losing their homes. if the pending disputes can be solved, we have a moral obligation to make that happen. i really want to thank all of the early co-sponsors who constitute a majority of the supervisors and include our entire committee. thank you, chair megar and supervisor peskin, and the other supervisors all for their co-sponsorship. i hope we can move forward and do everything in our power to prevent preventable eviction. thank you.

>> chair: thank you so much, supervisor preston, for introducing this item and your leadership throughout this pandemic which has resulted in helping thousands of folks in our city not losing their homes. i appreciate you in your elephants. thank you so much. if there's no other questions for supervisor preston, madam clerk, let's go to public comment. did you want to make another announcement if folks want to get ready if they need to. [speaking spanish].

>> we're checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not, press star 3 to be added to the line. we have seven listeners with four in the queue. please unmute the first caller. >> my name is scott weiber with the san francisco tenants' union and the eviction collaborative. i've been working on tenant rights issues and largely evictions for over 40 years and i'm very encouraged by this ordinance. it is an eviction prevention ordinance because it gives us a path to resolution that avoids the legal process. currently there is a three-day notice which is usually done

with the assistance of an attorney. this sets in motion a momentum that leads to an unlawful retainer and often ends in eviction. the proposed legislation gives us additional time to driveways this without immediate eviction, whether it's payment of rent or some other breach of the rental agreement. the city has invested quite a bit in community-based organizations as well as the collaborative as well as trying to keep people in their homes. this is a very good way to better utilize those resources, rather than having to deal with an adversarial litigation environment, they can go to the problem to help the person seek

penalty assistance it's not much to ask of the landlord. it's only 10 days. they get the most expedited process in the legal world and it's only 10 days. that might make the difference between having a tenant evicted or not. i support this legislation and encourage the board of supervisors to move forward with this. >> i'm from the san francisco tenants union calling in support of this legislation. it's really scary when you get served a three-day notice and you have to get it together to go to the eviction collaborative to file papers because you're being evicted. for what reason?

it could be a minor reason that the landlord wants to take you to court. they may win or may lose. you don't know. they don't know. to have 10 days to resolve the situation, whatever is the case that there is a breach, you can cure it without having to go through the trauma and the legal process. thank you. >> clerk: we have people in the queue. next listener.

>> good afternoon. this is theresa flander north beach tenants' association. inevitably tenants receive a notice late friday at 5:00 p.m. or if they return from work, they see something in the mail. this gives tenants the time to contact tenant councilors over that weekend which would be closed over the weekend. they would have access to tenant counseling, people to interpret what the notice means in a language they can understand. the thing is that the landlord knows in advance that this is something they are going to do. the tenant is only notified three days before a legal procedure begins in terms of an

eviction. so this gives tenants the time to have the counseling. if they need accommodations for their emotional support animal, that they have time to get a note from their doctor as examples. so this is a huge game changer and i am so thrilled that you, supervisor preston, have brought this forward. please, let's pass this on with a strong recommendation and have the board vote yes in favor. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the eviction defense collaborative and have over 35 years of experience working with tenants trying to preserve their housing. i'm so appreciative of this

proposed legislation which is a potential game changer for tenants in our city. it creates an opportunity to resolve issues before having to resort to an expensive and drawn-out and extremely expensive court process which is cheaper for all the parties involved, both the landlords and the tenants. it brings san francisco more in sync with many jurisdictions around the country. a three-day notice falls short of what due process would prior. it also brings in low-fault situations, very minor problems that could be resolved with enough of a warning notice so the tenant can seek assistance or request accommodation. and really be a win-win for the property owner and the tenant so the error is resolved and the

problem is fixed and the tenant can retain their housing. so it avoids evictions, saves court costs for the landlord, is favorable to all and the city which has already endorsed this tenant program. our agency is the lead agency for that program. i would be like to be part of the work fighting these unnecessary cases. >> clerk: next speaker, please. this is the last caller. if you would like to make public comment on item 3, you need to press star 3. >> i'm representing some of my colleagues [indiscernible] -- we are pleased to hear your sponsorship for this ordinance. we recognize the members and

individuals experiencing homelessness is rising in san francisco. therefore, [indiscernible] to facilitate access to pregnancy and neonatal resources. extending access to these individuals, what additional measures can san francisco provide in addition to more affordable, neonatal supplies, and low-income populations? >> thank you so much. we have three more callers in the queue. let's take the next caller. >> i am an organizer with the housing rights community of san francisco, calling in on this legislation to create a 10-day waiting period. evictions are violent and three days is not enough time for

tenants to make the best decision. increasing the notice time to 10 days gives tenants and their families enough time to reach out or make plans for how best to respond. thank you, supervisors, for bringing this forward and hope to move it past this committee with full recommendations. thanks. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, thank you. i am a staff attorney at the eviction collaborative. i am calling in support of this legislation. i have seen firsthand the importance and the need to postpone eviction cases. there is no reason that they can't have an additional waiting period before sending them to an eviction. if there was additional time it would provide tenants time to

cure the issue in most if not all cases. throughout the pandemic we have seen that more time on cases has benefitted tenants and so we should continue to work towards providing more time for tenants to address the issue underlying issues so we don't have to go through the court process and avoid it if possible. as other people have mentioned it is expensive and time-consuming and we need to find ways to resolve these issues without going to the court. we should all support this legislation. thank you so much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. we have two in the queue. >> i'm a small property owner in san francisco. i'm calling in and asking the

supervisors to oppose this legislation moving forward to the board of supervisors because it's unnecessary and [indiscernible] -- first of all, i'd like to see and i haven't heard any data put forth why 10 days is a good amount of time to give to tenants. is there any research that that will avoid evictions in the future? i would remind the supervisors that tenants already have more than 10 days to live up to their contract, it is the lease to live up to their contract. this is a very -- once again, a punitive action against small landlords like myself incurring costs when legislation like this is passed and i have to adhere to it. it is no secret in san francisco about all the trip-ups of a

three-day notifier and how that can cost the landlord time and money. i would ask the supervisors to block this and not move forward with it as it is punitive and there is nothing to help the housing situation in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have one caller in the queue. let's take the last caller. >> i own rental property in san francisco. i urge you to vote no on the proposed notice. what it looks like is a lot of people don't know how the eviction process works in san francisco. there's already numerous safety valves for tenants, like court-mandated settlement agreements and mandatory conferences between landlords and tenants. this gives tenants plenty of time to avoid losing their homes

even after an unlawful detainer is filed. the proposed notice does nothing that tenants need and it increases the cost of housing because most of us have to hire an expensive lawyer to send out each of these notices and higher legal costs and making the cost higher for tenants. that's what you're doing that. renters don't want that and housing providers don't want it either. please vote no. if you still think tenants need a little more than three days? how about changing the existing three-day notice to a four or five-day notice or 10 days, whatever. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. that looks like that was the last caller in the queue.

>> chair: okay. well, with that, complement is now closed. any other questions or comments? first, supervisor preston. seeing none, supervisor preston, do you want to make a motion that we send this to the board with full recommendation? >> so moved. >> clerk: in the motion as stated by supervisor preston to recommend item 3. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: we have three ayes that motion passes. >> chair: thank you. and that motion passes. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code to conditionally permit bars in the castro street

neighborhood commercial district; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code. members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 2 can call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001 and the my colleagued i.d. today is 2494 264 6753. >> clerk: we don't have supervisor mandleman with us but we have someone with his office. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair. i am from supervisor mandleman's office who couldn't be here to give a very brief background on

this ordinance. earlier this year we had a local entrepreneur who approached our office about her interest in opening a wine bar with some piano music and light snacks. it sounded lovely. she was calling because she went to the planning department because she was told this would not be possible. bars are not permitted in the castro planning district, which may come as a surprise. obviously as there are a number of bars there, they are effectively all grandfathered in. this is a fine thing for those bars that we love, but this is not a good thing for this lesbian small business owner and others like her who want to add to the neighborhood. since that conversation, the supervisor discussed this in the

neighborhood and the broader queer community including many local organizations. the prevailing sentiment, supervisors, is it doesn't seem fair to preclude new folks, queer folks, trans folks, from opening a an establishment in the neighborhood. at the same time, we also heard clearly there is a desire not to see a complete saturation of the neighborhood with just bars or to see a history of new bars. what the ordinance before you would do would remove the outright prohibition in this area and make bar uses permitted. there would be an opportunity to get in on a case-by-case basis and for the planning commission

to deliberate on that as well. this approach would be how bars are zoned in the other districts. this ordinance was unanimously recommended by the small business commission as well as the planning commission in december and the planning department staff is here as well to convey the planning commission's recommendation. this is a relatively simple piece of legislation that the supervisor believes will make this a welcoming neighborhood and retain its character. i'm available for any questions. thank you so much. >> chair: thank you so much. ms. merlone, do you have a presentation? >> no presentation. just here to convey that the planning commission heard this on december 16, 2021, and voted unanimously to approve the

ordinance as proposed. >> chair: thank you so much to you both. colleagues, if there are no questions or comments from you, let's go to public comment. madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see how many callers are in the queue. please press star 3 to add yourself to the queue. it looks like we have about to listeners today with one person in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this afternoon i'm speaking on my behalf as a private citizen and a 15-year resident of the castro. although i benefit from the privilege of quaintness, i have seen what happens.

every single bar is owned by a cis gender person. i have spoken with brown and black folks, lesbians and black people who have been heart broken to learn that making it to the united states, there is no place for them here. our friends and family and san francisco's visitors endure ongoing pain and trauma, not only because they don't find those spaces that prioritize them, but these bars set the tone that is reflected in the behavior of staff, performers, and guests. this exclusion of these bar owners is due to a deal cut in the 1980s that has no bearing on today. i invite you to support this proposed legislation. thank you so much.

>> clerk: that was the only caller in the queue, madam chair. >> chair: thank you so much. out of curious, when was this ban on new establishments implemented in the castro? >> thank you, chair. thanks to the great sleuthing at the planning department, it was determined that this had been included in the castro since that neighborhood commercial district was created in i believe 1987. this was a time period when we were creating many of these named districts. >> chair: interesting. thank you so much. so with that, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or comments or do you want to -- does anybody want to make a motion that we forward this with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> and this item was noted to

have a report. on that motion. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: thank you so much. that item passes unanimously with a positive recommendation. thank you so much. do we have any other business in front of the committee? >> that completes the business for today, madam chair. >> chair: great. thank you so much. we are adjourned. [♪♪♪]

>> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪♪♪] >> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for

san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and

i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to

have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and

see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence development of our early

learners. [♪♪♪]