we have a commission from honda and president swig. >> so, city attorney, hooking at the brief, i mean, i understand from having tobacco cases what the procedure and the protocols is here but listening to the appellant there's a misunderstanding on his part. so, i was kind of wonder what is is the communication like? have you spoken to the appellant personally and who was a staff member. he seems like that he honestly doesn't know that he is not supposed to sell the product. >> thank you for that question, commissioner honda. i can tell you that i've spoke spokenwith the appellant and wet discussed procedural components and regards to this matter and when it comes to the type of educational ut reach and communications that he had with the department, i'm going to

deper to dph staff with us here this evening and i just want to remind you that based on the decorations submitted there were six conversation that's were had in regards of notice of violation but i will defer to dph to answer. >> it seems a gee yus to me but listening to him and looking at his brief, i think he has it confused and a license from the state of definitely it for some reason he feels that supersedes and he is allowed to sell tobacco and they have a communication that what the reach out has been and tell us how that worked and i see our favorite on the line and i haven't seen you in a year or two. welcome. good evening, thank you so much. i'm honored to be here tonight and so with each of those notices of violations we're

actually staff trying to discuss this issue with the owners and we were literally touched out of the establishment and we could not engage in any conversation and -- sorry to interrupt you. when you say staff, does that mean other people or does that mean you? >> that is wanted to speak to the people and with him, right? >> so, i went out with inspector dang and i've been out there and i think on four site visits starting with the first site visit with the inspector and then after july 1st i was the lead as we were still trying to communicate this information with the business owners so i think i was there on at least four occasions and each

occasion, i was yelled at and told i did not represent the city and i was asked to leave immediately and it was very difficult and and there were two owners and they were extremely aggressive and i believe there was even a conversation that my supervisor and jennifer had and with the business owners and she's here tonight to provide that encounter as he would like to her from him. >> you have been before this beside' many times and i'm glad that we don't see any massage parlor permits in front of us recently and i'm sorry and thank you to and your staff members for endure tag and i just wanted to hear your side as to what

happened. even when you are trying to explain the situation, they were pretty much hostile and did not want to hear it and retaliatory. >> that is correct commissioner. we documented those conversations in our infection forks and because they row fused to sign and they speak with us so we had to send those reports by e-mail and mail. >> >> the due process has been served and you've tried on many attempts and at this point, they refuse to understand they're not able to sell tobacco products. >> that is correct. >> good seeing you again, it's been a while. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. lopez, thank you very much for your presentation and it seems that the significant ambiguity that might be here relates to the issuance of a

state license that seems to say that you can sell tobacco products and that might be assumed by a unsophisticated business practitioner it would be ok to sell tobacco products even when a more sophisticated business practitioner would know they would have to get a san francisco license and is there -- when those california licenses are issued, is there a written document that goes along with them and it says, that the city of this does not and this does not allow the sale of the product without a license from the city of san francisco and does it state on the license that the terms of this to sell

tobacco and will not include the city and county of san francisco and is there something that is intrinsically obvious upon the issuance of the california license and it says that don't even think about selling tobacco products and in the city of san francisco without that department health license. >> i'm going to defer that question to staff if that's ok. they deal with this on a daily basis. >> is we're back to ms. young. >> so, we have actually asking them when people apply for the state license and if they can defer them to us first and there are how many jurisdiction and they cannot see that and so we

really they notify our businesses and it's demonstrated by the fact the first visit, we don't issue of notice of violation and we're not talking about enforcement and fines and we're talking about it's just education. i spend in this program since 2010, there's many people who have obtained a state license and we educate them and give them the option to apply if they apply we tell them the whole process. we are transparent about the process. this is the first time in my career i engage with the business honers. it was hostile, aggressive and just refused to provide us with even an opportunity to try to educate. >> so what you are saying the excuse of well, i never saw that

letter in the mail from the city of san francisco. you never allowed the letter to a arrive because you delivered it in-person and are very clear in making sure that they understand what the terms and conditions are? is that correct? >> that is correct. let's go to the issue of going to supervisors and supervisor staff. and and the fact that you cannot transfer a tobacco license when you automatically and when you move your business even 100 feet and we experience i believe in hunters point. so, how is that, so if i were

again, that less than sophisticated business license owner and i again, i said, well, i have this california license and i'm going to go to my supervisor and or staff and get a view on this, is there a risk that an unknowing or less educated staff member might say, well, it seems that it's ok. you got this license from the state of california, or, what do you do about making sure that the supervisors know it but that staff really is bullet prove on this subject so if approached by a business practice nish ner with the notion that a california business license is ok in lieu of san francisco license that they give the right

answer. >> one of the things and we have a booklet that discusses everything how to sell tobacco permits in san francisco and what licenses you are required to have and it has literally has a picture permits and it administration and like this and the treasure tax collecter and all of those items are pictures and from all the agencies and all into this booklet. when we train new staff and sections we have that booklet and we use that booklet after the guidance and direction so we saying the exact same thing whether you worked in our program for many years or whether you work in our program for just a couple of years.

>> how does that move into the ranks of the staff member of the board and is it a possible a board of supervisor staff member might have provided this information and i'm giving them every benefit of the doubt. it's hard but i want to give them every benefit of the doubt. >> i'll let my supervisor, jennifer cal bert, she can chime in but in my opinion, we usually have supervisor ace it will also contact us directly so, a lot of times supervisor and even i would say of small business, there is so much support the business has and even when we have to say no, we actually.

>> we are moving on to a couple of comments is there anyone to provide public comment on this item. please, raise your hand. i don't see any public comment so we'll move on to rebuttal. mr. tahas. you have three minutes. >>

>> you are on mute. it's from 2004. the program started in 2006 so it doesn't apply to my license. supervisor one of the supervisor came in and he said we cannot do nothing to you. they keep coming to the store and they come in and unprofessional and he wants secretary so i stop selling cigarettes i want to keep selling cigarettes. they went to the landlord and the landlord break the lease and kick me in the streets. it's hard to and we have a hard time in san francisco. all this because of a program and i follow the law and i follow the program. my license i have it original license before that. they said 2010 and i've been selling cigarettes since 1997. i got my license in 2004. and the supervisor he came in one of the supervisors he said

we cannot do anything to you unless you want to you want stop selling cigarettes. i want to keep selling cigarettes. without cigarettes i cannot make it. i took a loan on my home to bite business and without cigarettes we cannot make it. we cannot. thank you, very much. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda. >> so, mr. taha although your license is from 1997, you moved locations, sir. it requires to get a tobacco your license from your previous location is your previous location. >> i changed the city. the city changed for me. it changed address for me. >> but your license you are applying, i'm going to ask the department that same question

and once you moved, you need to apply for that new license. >> i just a replied for the city and the city comes in and i go to the city. they tell me your lance active. it's active in san francisco city. every time they come in on call or i go out there. >> is there a reason why when the department representatives came to your store and you were com pat tive. >> they want me to sign i don't want to sell cigarettes. sign for them. they bring a paper and take pictures and you want to stop selling cigarettes. >> ok. >> that's true. i'm a professional.

>> i have no rebuttal. >> thank you, we have a couple questions. commissioner honda and commissioner chang. >> commissioner chang had her hand up from the last time i'll let her ask her question first this time. >> i was just going to ask, the city is comprised of a lot of different agencies and divisions and departments and so could you share with us who from the city you've called and to who you paid fees and between the authorization your license and telling you that you are lawfully and according to the regulations.

>> i go to the tax department. i go there and before i buy the business and it changed the license and i went there and you have two days to pay the fees $10 for each carton and they charged me $3,000. when we got it it was there and they send me to another rom to the supervisor. they said if you have all sets cigarettes you start sales now and it is the equalization and to change the address and in the sales of california. they give you a california license. and you stel now and i took that to the board and i a ploy and two weeks and after 10 days they call me and they bring the license. every time these people from the health department came after one year. every time they come, i go to

the city and i ask and they said i don't know what you are talking about your license is active. everything is fine. just to be clear, you've been going to the tax department at city hall to confirm you have the appropriate license. >> yes. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. >> i have a question, the follow-up question to the department of eph, i mean, there's some crazy confusion here. [laughter] and so, what is the appellant talking about in regard to the permit holder talking about in regards to the paper that these departments asking him to sign and that he also made a statement that we really can't do nothing for you but will you sign this voluntary thing not to sell cigarettes? >> i don't know what the

appellant is speaking about with the voluntary signature. we don't have anything like that. and our program we had notices of corrections and those are the violations and we do ask the business owners to sign that so i will speak to the license issuers. i tried on several occasions to explain what the a tell appellant hash73 alcohol license business is a beautiful store that sells very high-end liquor and they have the h73 alcohol license. that is the department of public-health director's hearings and he did have the tax collecter's representative to troy to explain to explain that the tax collectors' office does not issue the permits so the

permits are issued by the department and then the department and billion dollar the businesses and the license if they have from the tax collect or's office is the h73 alcohol off sale alcohol license. not the h31 tobacco license. >> ok, then the follow-up question, if he continues on this behavior of ignoring it, will it affect his alcohol license? >> no, this will not affect his alcohol license at all. beer only talking about the tobacco products. >> ok. so, i mean, because he have didn'tly enforcement doesn't seem to be working here. this is the sixth or seventh offense at this point? >> >> comments or a motion?

>> i'll try to start and keep it short and wore getting late. a misunderstooding but mr. taha if you are still listening your license that you are paying on is for your alcohol whether you understand it or not you do not have a license to sell tobacco products. your district has the maximum amount of tobacco stores in that district and as well as your located within 500 feet of another and store that sells tobacco products. sue should reach out to the department and in this particular case, my motion would be to deny the appeal and that the fines were properly issued and this is been repetitive six

or seven times. >> sock, and it was properly issued in administrative finds and they were properly student and the order and the fines. >> any other commissioners have any commentary on this item? >> then we move forward. >> i would wonder if given how much confusion if there was any appetite for refusing the (inaudible) in our jurisdiction? >> i don't think we can touch fees and if they're willing allow some and what they should

be just like inspectors young i've been with the department for 15 years and i've never experienced an owner that has treated inspectors like he did and kicking them out. causing us to repeatingly go

back to spend resources and time. and really putting in the extra effort to educate conference calls and there's a lot of stuff that hasn't even been talked about and the amount of time that staff took was significant and i also decided, because of the business and small business and and the reinfection fees were $1500 and. >> can i remind you that dph was mentioned in three of our earlier hearings. >> oh, no, i was on mute.

at this point you see where this board is going and he is already not going to be able to sell tobacco products and if he continues to do so, this board will not give him any break the next time. i've never done this before. i've never reduced a fee. i would want to have ms. lopez chime in and looks like brad also attorney has his hand up as well. so, i would appreciate this because i have not -- i don't know if it's my call because the director of health and the hearings officer that is designated which is the third party and the ones who issued

the fines. brad russ', the matter is above the board denova and you are in the same position to assess the fines that you think are appropriate. the code provides the first violation is $100 and second violation is $200 and after that every violation is $500 so that would be the constraints and i don't know whether the department of public-health has any other policy with how they assess these signs that i know after the $500. >> could you repeat what you said at first about the commission discussion. >> matter is before the commission de novo and director

evaluated the case at hearing where the order was shied. >> want to make one comment in regards to reduction and specifically the department is comment that they didn't already tack on the additional reinspection fees and i want to plug for you all as the mansion there's $100 for the first violation up to $100 the first violation and up to $200 for the second and up to $500 for the third and every subsequent and here, if dph would impose the max for the notice of the violation it would have came out to $2,300 but here they didn't go the max they already imposed it and reduced amount which is the $1,800 and in addition to not including the reinspection

fees so i want to highlight that for the group before you take it under consideration. thank you. >> under the circumstances, and as it was just explained by ms. lopez, i would in consideration of the views suffered s. by the city employees, who went to do their job, and tried to do their job, and were not greeted in an appropriate fashion, i would be hard-pressed to support any gratuity, any further gratuity because according to ms. lopez, gratuity has been extended and i would not extend any further gratuity. it's been extended and i could not support giving any gratuity for the behavior exhibited here and the number of notices of

violations. >> commissioner chang, can i continue with my motion. >> it was very helpful to hear from the rest of staff and the city attorney and getting more color on what was experienced. so, thank you. >> thank you, my motion stands, madam director. >> ok. so we have a motion from commissioner honda on the basis the administrative fines were properly issued. on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> does that encloud a reduction of fees or not. >> no, no reduction. >> aye. >> thank you. commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0 on

the appeals denied. commissioner chang is going to be excusing herself. thank you and have a good evening. >> so we will be moving on to item 8a and 8b. these are appeal numbers 21-115 and 22-001 subject property 734 vermont street and appealing the issuance on december 17th, 2021 to home field property solutions and a lot terration permit and we can figure first flora addition of 134 square feet and rear expansion infield and remove front door, not visible from the city and expand the back 152 deck expansion and the building area less than 10 feet in height and set in so it's not to require a fire wall. third floor add rear deck above existing second floor roof 126 square feet and one bath and this is permit 2021-1130-3340

and the appellants are joyce book, russell and car brawn. we'll hear from ms. book. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for this opportunity to work with the board and administrative staff. we're fortunate to have a board of appeals here in san francisco to help neighbors like ourselves, experiencing -- i'm sorry, i'm not good at this. can we stop, i forgot to share my screen. i'm sorry.

to help neighbors like ourselves experiencing impacts and the occurring during and after the permit issue is processed. this is a complicated and appeal with events and permit and happening at record pace and we'll start by focusing on what we see are the primary causes related to the adverse impacts our family is experiencing in broad strokes, we're not feeling like we're seeing a high level of accountability as it relates to specific information being provided by the permit holders and during the course of the permit application and review and issuance process. as we know, we're all impacted when there's a lack of honesty.

working together with our city agencies are so important and but this didn't happen at 734 vermont. there was no neighborhood notification, no meeting, no meet and greet, nothing. the real estate group has not been transparent with us. the llc has successfully stayed off the record and blatantly ignores basic well intention business and professional codes of conduct for license holders for home failed property solutions, for example, it's not ok for a business to install dozens of cameras and point them into our children's bedrooms. this type of adverse impact which the board of appeals can help us address, with dbi and the permit holder are # and

again, the result of a lack avenue count ability and lack of verification and on ideas like owner ship, dbi is well aware of these types of misrepresent sensation made by developers and professional house buyers, serial submissions of fraudulent acts, affidavits, signed. look at this. we have permits riddled with blatant misrepresent sensations and being filed at warp speed. makes literal will he have no chance to understand what is happening with over the counter permits and let alone defend themselves against this level of abuse being caused by permit holders and skilled at this misrepresentation as we'll demonstrate.

about what do they do? they put signs up and they put them up on their house right that hit next door and we've got people screaming at our home and my kids are right upstairs no neighborhood notice and no plans to neighbors and look at november. we have another permit filed on november 2nd, the work starts to begin on the fourth.

and boom, we have four huge dumpsters arriving over the period of eight days. on the 15th of december here comes another permit and on that very same day, while they're complaining about us so let's go back to this list. this very large list. it's complicated and close to $200,000 claimed on these permits. there are so many errors. it's hard to keep up.

you have to go through the dbi system and cree create the file to put it back together. look at this permit for all of this, a gutted building, one kitchen, one and a half restrooms in kind and existing. they knew on the 20th of october. they already scheduled those dumpsters to a arrive and they were going to get that building. so let's bring in some light. the building was sold in full disclosure and identify why the misrepresent sensations are dangerous and so many items related to this building, need to be addressed. thank you. >> thank you, we will hear from russell and cara brawn. you have seven minutes.

>> thank you, very much. i just want to thank all of you and it's hard work that you do and the hours tonight represent quite a bit so we're indebted to the commissioners and everyone attending as well as alec who helped us prepare so a little bit about ourselves. my wife is in her car driving home from work and i'm here with a young family and i'm a full-time er doctor. we have fantastic long-term rental tenants and a child that enjoys the location and particularly the backyard where they spend a lot of their time. particularly with the pandemic. our concerns if you could, can you pull up the slid.

so our concerns echo what joyce says in a different presentation. our concerns regard the otc over the counter process and specifically the second and third in potentially roof decks we're concerned about so in short, we feel that it's four-level remodel that would be handled otc and we don't profess to know all the requirements but, it really does seem just excessive to go on a four-storey building remodel. and joyce said, the permits were serial, piecemeal and a greater depth and scope of the project. the owners and the contractor have not been transparent and all i have introduced to us as the move in owners when he is

general contractor and it really just sort of sets the stone and on one of the later calls with him, he says quote, you want to move as quickly as possible without full planning submission and neighborhood approval. and his example of being disingenuous removal of backyard sidewalks which turned into removal of the full cement backyard and impact choices foundation and next slides. please. this is what it looks like. clearly this deck expansions ever buried in the documents and they have impact on our house and our neighborhood.

you can see drawings of the third floor and you can see in the photograph there's an opening on the north side of the property rooftop and the plans, i believe, the stairs leading up to the rooftop based on guesswork and my concern is that this third floor deck on the far-right could lead and through this outlet a crown roof deck facing san francisco and a beautiful city views and so we have tremendous concerns about that and next slide. this is one of the documents provided by the owner and regarding privacy and i don't know how to interpret this except to suggest there's a view of sight into the bed rom on our third floor in the back and i'll show you a photograph as well as sound intrusion overlooking the bedroom as well as the deck and we can see it on the next two

slides. here is one view. the diagrams don't spell how we live next door to each other. if you could present the next slide. this is the third there were deck proposed and how massive and evasive it is and the second there were likewise is just sitting on top of our deck. and really, you know, if there's an expansion, if at all there should be a reduction and our concern also is the bamboo planters were placed three tofour-foot- box planters placed next to the property line and could that be a set up for an outdoor kitchen, barbecue, fire hazard and has our concerns. next slide. here is when we first moving into the house, typical winter season there would be sandbags

on the garage and clearly there was multiple times of flooding into that garage and we did not see in the plans discussion in the plans about remodel or any kind of work being done on the garage and we think there's a lot to be said. the fact it's not discussed or being entertained in this row model. clearly it needs to be looked at and provided publicly given the seismic work that needs to be done and the next picture shows the garage. it's a four level structure that is well beyond the scope of an otc. again, we feel as joyce does, that the signs that were placed were targeted racial divisive and certainly not neighborly and really in our opinion is of bad taste and we felt the complaints submitted to dbi on our property were inappropriate and a lot of

time that was unnecessary so in conclusion, just some bullets and points. we would like your help to deny the permits ending in 40 and all other related to this replace with the full planning department review and neighborhood approval which we feel is not asking too much. we have received two neighborhood approvals on neighbors and the last six months and we're not sure why we couldn't expect one on 734. it should include the garage remodel inclusive of the seismic upgrade. we have the second and third floor decks given the proximity of the house and we would like you to deny the staircase and deny future roof decks on the north side of the house and we'd like you to restrict the height and bamboo in supplier hazard between our properties and

lastly clarify the fence between the properties. thank you, very much. >> julie, you are on mute. >> sorry. thank you. thank you dr. brawn. so we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holders. mr. patterson, welcome you have 14 minutes. >> thank you, very much. it looks like the previous slides are still up. >> if you could stop sharing your screen, please. >> alec, are you there? >> sorry i was stuck. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening president swig

and commissioners join patterson for the permit holder representative. thank you for your time tonight. i'd like to go ahead and share my screen. bear with me just a moment, please. >> we can see your screen. >> great, thank you. >> commissioners, the appellants have filed something of a scatter shot appeal tonight and a number of new arguments raised for the first time just now and there's still no legal or factual support for their arguments for permit and i'll do my best to respond both to the old argument and these brand new ones. the and a modest balcony.

first the appellant's argue the permit should not have been issued over the counter but not every permit requires intake and this permit small scope of work clearly qualifies for over the counter review. and it's worth noting over the counter does not mean rubber stamped and plans were submitted to the planning department. planning reviewed the plans and requested revisions. revisions were made and row submitted for further review. the planning department rereviewed the application and approved it. the application also went to dbi and the other departments for their review. and rereview. and the appellants have not

stated a legal basis why this review is improper other than they don't like it and they wish they could have had more notice. the appellants argued that the planning department should have issued a 311 notification. but this permit scope of work is not require planning intake or 311 notification. the proposed are within the buildable care and pulled become from the property line and the rear deck is less than 10 feet above grade. they're asking the board of appeals to do it on the discretionary review it's not what the code requires here. and i think it should be mentioned the appellants and many other neighbors of the project have their own decks. and i'll zoom in here so you can see, just how many of them have decks facing each other and facing the project site.

they have a minor and over the exiting first floor in the new cal bonnie over the existing second floor would impact their privacy and cast shadows on their property. in response to this concern being expressed. the project architect completed a privacy study and restained a respected consultant to complete a shadow study and you can see here, what mr. brawn showed a moment ago page one of the privacy study, not called out in his presentation the privacy screening measures that were enclouded and mature plants are being included in planter boxes and each side and lower deck and on the upper deck as well on the

balcony and these blocked views of the appellant's properties and there's no significant privacy impact. and this is in planned view which responds to what mr. brawn said looking backwards into this windows and these are mature plants on his side of the deck blocking views into his windows and this is a blind wall here and this has been thought through and the project sponsor did include mitigation to avoid any such problems that they're complaining about. likewise on the other side. mature plants, along the property line and the corner of the building and blocks and vows of the windows and of the vast majority of particular deck with the exception of a little sliver

of their deck pretty far away. the -- and again i want to mention the appellants and many other neighbors also have their own decks and it would be unfair not to allow it here as well. similarly the shadow study shows there are negligible shading impacts on the project and at most a 3% reduction in sunlight hours and most the shadow falls on the blind wall. so really no impact. the full 47-page report is in your packets and the declaration is here to answer any questions tonight. and however, dbi inspector grown and mccue issued a site inspection confirming that the plans matched the site

conditions and issued a start work order. they have already been found without merit. fourth, the appellants argue the project site was demolished and this is completely untrue. interestingly, the appellant filed a complaint about sheet rock removal relating to the debris mentioned earlier and but they had a permit it's number 2018 and 03 so it does not make

sense and it shows it's being used for some other purpose and on that topic, i was informed the appellant started filing complaints on the permit holder's other construction projects that have nothing to do with her. this appears to be some sort of personal vendetta which is unfortunate. to end on a happy note i want to note the adjacent neighborhood to the west did sign a letter of support. so commissioners, in a short the permit was properly issued and the appeals should be denied and i also want to respond briefly to a few of the statement this is the previous presentations and first about outreach and saying there should been no

outreach to the neighbors about this project and called before the backyard work and e-mailed and texted that he intended and

as well as stop work orders and start work orders and so you know to say that this is some sort of serial permitting exercise, where there's permits, it's not true. not pointed into the neighbor's windows and so it's up with of those unfortunate situations where neighbors are not happy about construction and unfortunate relationship has

arisen here but hopefully with the privacy screening and the data shown in this 46-page report about shadow impacts, that there are no significant shadow impacts, hopefully this can be the basis of these folks moving on forward together and having a better relationship and i'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time today. >> thank you. we have questions from commissioner honda and president swig. >> good evening, councilor. so, i have several questions. first of all, can you explain the notice of violation? >> sure. let me pull that up. if you would like, i'm happy to share my screen. i can show this. >> oral or visual, that's fine.

>> well, i'll just go ahead and read the description. unpermitted construction and vacant house north side of falling into neighboring property and infested with ra cons, plumbing lights were cut, construction on back deck and staircase which is attached to neighboring house and there's open sewer and toilets, cutting electrical and gas lines using hacksaw. i would know there were two open permits already covering work on the property and happy to give you the permit numbers again. and the other things like -- >> what was the notice. i see the notice of violation so what was the violation? what was not in compliance? >> the notice of violation which i can also pull up and i'm happy to show. the interior finish, maybe i should show this. i'll share my screen from here.

>> i said it was the buildings and 3,000. >> i don't want to shoot from the hip. i'll find out and give you that answer when we come back. >> looking at your brief you are thorough and i don't see copies of any of the permits in your brief. >> is there a reason why that is. >> double check. i believe they're attached to a declaration neighborhood.

>> the last question was, where is that? is that there was not altercation with the complaint filed against the city inspectors. >> there was an altercation and there was a complaint filed against the city inspector on page 16 of the appellant's brief. did you not see that. >> there were a lot of strange claims made. >> was there a complaint filed against the city inspector? >> i'm not aware of any formal

complaint and there was a question raised about how the notice of violation was issued without inspector gaining access to the property and it is -- >> are any of the clients and -- >> yes, he is in the hearing. >> can you answer that question, please. >> thank you for attending the meeting. we never file any formal complaints. we just arrived to the property and introduce ourself to joyce the neighbor. she told us that she is well connected inspector and other people in the city as well. >> so a little bit of posturing. >> and then we got the notice of violation and how we got notice

of violation without any site visit and it's what we did and we never file official complaints against no one. >> maybe since your counselor explained how did you move 250 square feet and how many square feet did you remove when you demoed? >> prior to and so we got a permit for removal sheet for the one in 2018 and when we bought the house and as well as the wireing and repiping, as soon as you need to if a kitchen remodel and with all the bathroom. >> your permit, sorry to interrupt you but your permit and the removal of sheet rock 150 to 200 feet and how much did

you remove? >> the permit is not saying how many square feet of sheet rock removal that was an assumption the inspector did and we never mentioned any square foot of removal and we remove sheet rock and it's all the old wire and put in a new wire so we demo the sheet rock so we will be able to install the wire. with all the water pipes, the drain pipes, and so we happen to remove a little bit more sheet rock than what was expect this one there. inspector got in. >> and i mean, you are not the first person to get ahead of the work here in san francisco. second question is that when you were issued the notice of permit did you continue to work on the property? >> what is the question again? >> after you received the stop-work order in the form of a notice of violation, did you continue to work on the

property? >> we didn't perform any work but we have a leak in the roof and we needed to have an emergency repair on the roof. it's by understanding it's mandatory -- >> how long did that work take? >> what is that mean? >> how long did that work take to fix the emergency leak in the roof? >> they finished the performance i believe within an hour or so? >> >> thank you, very much, sir. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig, do you have a question? you are on mute. i am going to hold. >> ok, thank you. we will hear from the planning department. ms. tam you have 14 minutes. welcome. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. once again, this is tina tam planning department staff and 734 vermont street and it's in the zoning directing and a 40x

heighten bulk directing and the lot measures 25 feet wide by 10y is a historic resource and the permit under appeal recon fib at living space on the first floor and the new addition on the first floor is an infill and so it will be under the existing second floor and in other words there's no change to the existing building footprint on the property. the permit proposes and the distinct second there were roof deck in stairs and the roof deck and stairs will be setback three feet from property line and the roof deck itself and on top of the first floor. on the third floor, the permit proposes creating a new roof deck 13 feet wide by nine feet long. like the second floor deck, the

new 126 square foot roof deck on the third floor will sit on top of these second there were. seeing the proposal and it's within the buildable area is a lot and the new stairs are less than 10 feet and property line and no neighborhood notification is required. the new reconfigure second floor and the new third floor roof decks are considered roof decks and roof decks are in the buildable areas and neighborhood notifications. as such this permit was approved over the counter by a planning staff on december 2nd, 2021. the appellants are concerned about privacy and impact of the new decks. the planning department does not believe that the design of the proposed decks are incover sit ant with other decks that are routinely reviewed and approved by the city. they are reasonably sized and

setback from both side property lines. the project complies to the planning code and it's consistent with the residential design guidelines including the department handout and the department recommends approval of the project. while the appellant raises other issues and concerns related to illegal demolition, serial permitting and possible illegal exterior work the department did not find any evidence of violations of the planning code. and based on the photos take not by the senior district inspectors there was no removal of any interior or exterior wall. while sheet rocks and boards were removed, the over all structural framework of these walls, remain in place and intact. and there were other separate permits on file that were row viewed, approved and issue for exterior window and door replacements. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig and then

commissioner honda. >> thank you. there's ambiguity that i find between what is serial permitting and what is a series of permits. what in your view, what is serial permitting and then what is reasonable issuance of separate permits which in the aggregate would amount to one general permit to do an entire project. where is that fine line? >> that's a really good question. we don't know how the definition and the planning code for serial permitting. many people chose to file multiple permits on a project. for different reasons. there is not any restrictions of know of in the planning code that says, you know, for a project of this scale, the scope, you can only file one

permit or two permits. people chose to file permits for sometimes work they start with and that work changes over time and they need another permit to cover whatever additional school they may have not not anticipated and or sometimes they anticipate for additional scope they tagger that permit review process and break it down into different phases so when the planning department purposes, we don't have any restrictions about it someone filing a multiple permits on a project. >> unless it goes out of the buildable area or the previously buildable areas and which point the scope does change because the building gets larger. >> that's right. we pro fer having one permit that is comprehensive so we can see everything at the same time and know exactly what is going to happen and that's not reality. yeah.

>> now, i just heard him talk about what commissioner honda described as getting ahead of himself, he started talking about a renovation of the kitchen and other stuff that was not involved in your description of the project whatsoever. where does that come in or was that handled in a previous permit. >> that sounds like it was handled either under a previous permit or another permit that was recently filed and it's still going through the city process and for review. i don't see the last permit that was referenced that was filed for the property and making it to the planning department yet so that could be that permit that also changes additional layout on the inside of the building. >> yeah and that would be called really getting ahead of yourself

starting construction on an item where the permit hasn't been finished yet. let's be realistic and reasonable about this although if i'm a neighbor i might not be realistic and reasonable about this. because whatever this permit holder is doing it's within the buildable area of the building does it really matter if they were with the exception of the decks, which i review, they're small and we've seen a hell of a lot larger decks than this and in any generic project, as long as you are staying within the four walls as long as you are

not making two departments into one and some real fleeing rant stuff pretty much whether you serial permit or you do it, i'm using the word serial permit whether you do multiple permits, let's do it better. they do a multiple permit in succession or whether you do one macro permit because within the bill able area because the conditions of the residents really are not going to change, because it's within that buildable area it doesn't matter whether it's serial/multiple or done as one permit? >> pretty much. your correct there's no change of youth and the property remains two families and the work that is proposed is within the existing envelope and there are new decks being introduced

and there are changes of the the design of the deck and they all sit on top of existing buildings that are already there so there's no technically an expansion of the building on the low but i could see how people could have a concern about well it's a new deck it's higher and taller and from our point of have you it's pulled back from the property line which we like and they're also incorporating some neighboring design gestures of putting up screening and landscaping to provide a buffer which is ideal and they need throw permits and it's up to them. >> i'm not going to defend the permit holder but chemistry between neighbors aside the

process by which the developer attacked the project really, other than the two decks, and argue plea some demolition which i would consider not significant construction in the backyard, we're really not -- there's really nothing that is even at risk of flagrant violation here. except for the discussion on the >> they might have a different take on what is going on on the property, buton from the plannig department standpoint we don't have any concerns or any sort of open forcement take on the property. >> d.b.i.'s conversation might have to do with the fact that a lot more was torn out than what

was permitted to do so. d.b.i. might have a comment on how come they are working on the kitchen and wiring and plumbing on something not permitted yet. the planning portion of it, my points of view are within reasonable boundaries? >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. question from commissioner honda. >> very similar. rick answered a lot of the questions i have. your press deassessor, our dear friend sanchez used to explain when the permitting process, you know in this particular case they knew they were going to do work on both floors yet the permit was only for a small portion. people get ahead of themselves. that is fine. scott explainedthey used the pes

to get from one to 10 without doing a full consolidation, if they had taken out all of the work they wanted to do with one permit, would there be a different issue or different permitting issue to look at? >> i don't think so. i looked at all permits on the property including the one just filed. we haven't had a chance to see it yet. the description on the permits all entail work within the building envelope. they might want to do new finishes for the bathrooms or cabinets or relocate in a different part of the building. i wouldn't trigger an additional review outside of the over the counter process. it wouldn't trigger intake unless there was a lot of walls

shown to be removed that is would trigger us to say that could lead to soft demo. >> that is the concern. one of the appellants have photos to show what it looked like. they are going to do plumbing one day, kitchen next day. i don't see a problem if the totality would not change the scope or process. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building and inspection. welcome, doctor greene. you have 14 minutes. >> good evening. matthew green representing department of building inspection. there is history on this project that leads to the permit under appeal today. may 27, 2021 d.b.i. received unpermitted construction at vacant house 734 vermont.

complaint team, inspectors made attempts to gain access with no success. october 28, the permit was issued for the kitchen and bathroom. november 22, window replacement issued. november 145, 2021 dis-- november 15 notice of violation sheetrock ruse moved from the intear for of the building. the soft work order was issued. november 30, 2021, the building application was filed. this is the permit under appeal today. while this permit was processed d.b.i. received new two newcomb plates with no building permit.

i informed the building owner. they were reluctant to allow access to the property. i reiterated no work can start until the site permit. the cover the work done. december 2021 i proposed a site building. we agreed to the new permit reflected the current conditions on the site. i got notice that it was appealed. this was approved over the councilther. they determine if it can be reviewed within a one hour time so. if so the application can be approved over-the-counter. there is an internal guide that

states permits for kitchen remodel, bathroom, residential interior remodel for decks less than 20 feet above what the planning department said can be approved over-the-counter. 503.11.1 is the san francisco existing building codes states removal replacement wood framed occupancy one or two units is not substantial change. the permit holder appears to have started renovation prior to valid permits. refused access to the property. it was not provided until seven months after the first complaint. currently there are three active building permits on the property. one kitchen and bathroom, one for window replacement and one for the permit under appeal right now. two expired permits in 2018

mentioned earlier. the electrical and plumbing permits are expected. they are complied with the violation and the permit under appeal should be issued. i believe it should be epheld. i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you. question from commissioner honda and president swig. >> you are burning the midnight oil. you are still at d.b.i. >> i am. >> we are in the comfort of our own home. as i mentioned several times. people get ahead of permits. not the first. all we ask is that the they come in to conformity and go to the department. seven months seem a little bit

long for the contractor not to allow d.b.i. access. i am going to ask that same question why it took seven months. in the brief it states there way a complaint with a member of your department. can you elaborate on that? >> yes. the permit holder made accusations he was friends with the appellant or complainant. i interviewed and didn't think that had any merit. >> another question. this guy is addressed in the sunset. he is a local developer. is there a history of hish shoeses with the city. >> i am not aware. we did receive a new complaint for a property.

>> neighbors going at it. >> we did issue notice of violation for the property. >> thank you very much and for your long hours of service. >> president swig. >> what if somebody behaves in that fashion. abuses privilege, abuses the statutes by going ahead to do the work knowing we will get the permit anyway because we are going to do it anyway and there is nothing wrong with it. how do you prehaven't anarchy and chaos within the developer community? >> with the second notice of violation against the property, this contractor is added to our

expanded complaint control watch list. three violations within 18 months they will added to a list of bad actors that will require greater scrutiny and oversight on all projects. >> in this case as planning there is nothing wrong with the planning issue because the building envelope is not changed. from your point of have you this sounds like more of a nightmare because your department has been abused or the statutes related to how your department tries to we are abused. not as much of a happy camper as she might be.

in the long run there isn't anything wrong with this project except for behavior, breach of protocol and general nuisance created for which your only accountability is to put them on the bad boy list, is that true. >> bad boy list. there is also penalties. i will say he refused access for quite a long time. when i think he had access at the end of december i was shocked to see and i was expecting the worse when we got in there. [indiscernable] >> really nothing in the long run by your admission nothing is

wrong with this project other than the way that this project was implemented tactically by the permit holder? >> they did start work. >> i would call that tactical breach. he made a strategic decision to get this thing done. other than maybe starting early and getting ahead of themselves, as commissioner honda says. thanks. >> public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? please raise your hand. press star 9 if you called in. there is no public comment. rebuttal. ms. book first. you have three minutes.

>> first of all, thank you very much. no, i don't knowsion birmingham. i went there that day and i did see him standing across the street, as most of us had done and know you can visually see through the entire building. it is not just the first floor or whatever. it is three full floors gutted. gone, you can see through the building. folks are in and out of the building now, right? okay i want to get back to a couple of theirs. i know i went fast on some of these items. i apologize. three minutes. it is a lot.

very difficult to do. back to the permits. there is a total of four building permits, two of them, one is electrical and one is plumbing. that is the six permits. second complaint we covered the notice of violation. the once not highlighted is what caused so much fear for us. when you don't know anything. what do you do, you hop on the internet to figure out who these folks are. we discover quickly these are very young real estate professional home buyers, house flippers. they target distressed houses like the one next door. they target, prepare, get in

quickly and demo it. they are good at it apvery quiet. we had no idea they were in there with this building. eight days total. they had preplanned all of these full-sized dumpsters to arrive. what we didn't understand that we do now. he has six or seven different jobs and goes by different names. he needs an rmo, managing supervisor, one to pay to hire to work with. first has criminal charges, lost his license. this is his first mentor and boss. all kinds of corruption, professional business code violations, a lot of stuff going on quickly. loses the license. flipped into a new rmo.

we have a lot of proposed solutions. civil harassment and we disagree. this is a soft demo that should be looked at and given one permit. this is our ask. i want one cohesive changes. go for it. give us one permit,some direction. >> angyou. >> we will he hear from dr. brawn. >> it is hard to imagine four story remodel. i have the list of requirements here i think it is unfair to the neighbors who have gone through this process as we would have

expected. it minimizes the role of the formal permitting process if you can get away with four story remodel this way. we are sets a precedent that is a disservice to the community. 2. when i look at the checklist. return deck and stairs less than 50%. i don't know what that means. they are redoing the decks 100%. why would they check it off? in addition, i don't know whererd is. whether or not this demolition involved 75 to 100% of the interior. 100% of the interior is involved less the basement. i am not sure how that is

excused. please, building department, planning department, tell me how this meets these criteria. i really worry for setting precise department. lastly, the tenant shared it. can that not be shared with the group? >> we provided public comment to the commissioners. >> thank you. we will hear from lion patterson. you have six minutes. >> i will try to respond briefly. commissioner swig asked about the kitchen remodel permits mentioned previously. i just want to clarify there

were two permits issued prior to this work being done, prior to the current owner purchasing the property. i will share my screen to show that. this is the 2018 permit for kitchen remodel. cabinets, flooring, paints, walls, doors, opening, bath remodel. remove replace tiling. installing 5/eighth drywall on front room office. this is active in the system. this is a revision permit to add additional work from 2018. wood floor removed and replaced. paneling replaced.

dry wall repaired. this is also shown as still active. it sounds like three permits may be expired now but not updated in pts. maybe we need to renew them. we will discuss that after this hearing. commissioner swig asked is it a bad actor. he took a long time to grant access to d.b.i. the permit holder has new advisers. my involvement is more recent. along with others. hopefully you will see at this point and have seen already cooperation granting access working with the inspectors. my hope is that we will continue. i have to respond to the

attacks. i hear and she feels threatened by the work going on next door. feel threatened because the owners are young or that they work in real estate? that is not right. to criticize the permit holder because a former business partner had licensing problems. he parted ways with him. that can't be held against this permit holder. that they had a licensing problem. i am happy to answer questions. this is thoroughly discussed. they went through the proper process and scope of work qualifies for the process. they include the screening

measures to mitigate any privacy impacts and shadow impacts are not significant at all. thank you very much. i am happy to answer any questions. >> question from president swig, then commissioner honda. >> you went too fast. i am ahead of you. i am in a different time zone. virtual works for me this week. did you say that that permit for the kitchen was no longer a valid permit. was that per myth issued to your clients or a predecessor owner? >> prior owner.

>> is it legal to carryover or appropriate or standard operating procedure to carryover is permit such as this to -- i would know if we had a big commercial building in downtown san francisco under construction, yes, the contractor would carryover permits. in this situation like this where the contractor is not staying the same or owner is not the same and is it legal, appropriate, started operating procedure, anyway kosher to assume that previous permit is

valid for your purposes? >> it is common to transfer property with permits with entitlements. i notice on both of the 2018 permits the authorized agent is listed as the owner. i don't have further information about the details. it is a few years backna. perhaps senior inspector green can answer about permits transferred between owners. to my knowledge that is common and normal. >> one more question. when it comes to your time please answer the question as to whether the transfer and use of the preissued permit. my final question is this gentleman you represented last

year providing the plans to the planning department in a timely fashion? >> no. that is another clients. i didn't have a chance to check. >> commissioner honda. >> right now i think the current status of the property is three or four stories? >> i believe it is a three store building. yes, three stories. >> the current status now is the building is gutted and all of the sheetrock removed. is that where the building is at now.

>> my understanding the sheetrock is removed. >> from all level? >> i would have to defer to the permit holder. >> contractor is here. >> only sheetrock removed framing the same. >> all sheetrock is removed. is your intention all mu sheetrock and new electrical and plumbing and heating. >> goal is all new building up to code. >> either from you or mr. total cost of the work to be done. >> i can pull up the permit at issue.

>> the suspended permit. valuation and this is according to d.b.i. formula. not actual construction cost. value at $110,000. >> i saw another permit for $40,000? another permit for 40. is that all of the permit for the property at this point? >> happy to go through the full list of permits. there is the subject permit which is $110,000. there is second permit to replace windows in the front. 10 windows $9,000. next permit to comply with

complaint. one kitchen and one-half restroom remodels in kinds. rewire electricity, new subpanel and main panel, plumbing and mechanical work. concrete walkway and backyard. that is one of the questions if they have a permit. it is covered here. valuation $40,000. >> total cost $199,000 to fully demo the three levels? >> this is building department formulas. >> it seems light for the scope of work to be performed on the property, right? ada is $150,000 on one level.

thank you. >> planning department. you have six minutes. >> thank you very much. tina tam. the basement structure. to go ahead and respond to the appellant's questions about the deck being something that should are required neighborhood notification. to be clear if you are replacing or repairing a deck more than 50% what is there now, if it is located in the required rear yard and more than 10 feet in height, then it does trigger a neighborhood notification. as we know, the new stairs proposed one story. less than 10 feet. pulled back three feet. no firewall required. it is within the buildable area

of the lot. neighborhood notification not required. therefore can be removed and approved over the counter. i have no other comments. thank you. >> dr. green six minutes. >> to address the question about 50% or more than 50%, from d.b.i. point of view stairs less than 50% that is a repair. you can get building approval without plans. more than 50% it is replacement and plans must be submitted. the soft demo. it is just sheetrock and plastery moved from walls. interior frames is intact. there is questions about the value of the permit.

the issue right now $159,000. permit that has value of $40,000. that is the value estimate by the applicant. plan checkers will reevaluate that. 2018 permit value less than $100,000. those were good for 360 days. they should have expired. somebody has to go in and expire them. they show issued, the permits are expired. i will manually expire those tomorrow. they would have to be renewed. any questions i am not getting at? >> would you expect that this is

an experienced contractor investor by their own brag. i saw this on the internet. this is part of the testimony. by their own brag they are experienced contractors, real estate investors who it would seem would be sophisticated to know if they bought a property that what you explained they should already know. they shouldn't be proceeding to start the demo and reconstruction on a permit that is obviously therefore not valid even though it hasn't been canceled for whatever reason by d.b.i. again, what do you do with this?

this is a blatant abuse. do it now and beg for forgiveness later? what do you do about this? i don't want this happening again. this happens all of the time. it makes us upset because this has nothing to reflect on yourself as the department. frustration. what are we going to do about this so that we disincentivize this behavior of do the bad deed now especially when you know it is bad and pray for forgiveness. what is the penalty? >> the board of supervisors have a new ordinance to get extra

scrutiny. like you said there are penalties attached to the permit application. they go ahead and do this. hoping this new compliance control list will limit this behavior in the future. >> in your opinion, you know, i said before it seemed that this was a tactic. it is a strategy accompanied by a tactic. we know we are going to save penalties here. the time and money associated with filing for the permit, going through the hoops is well worth the penalties we are facing. what are the penalties actually? >> permit fee penalties? >> for doing what we are seeing

happening. there are going to be penalties assessed. how much are the penalty? >> it is nine times the permit fee. work without permit, beyond scope is two times. >> the permit fee was what, please? >> i don't have that in front of me. >> can you proximate? >> probably 3-$4,000. >> they are placed at risk 35, $40,000 to get this thing finished and on the market to get it sold and figuring the faster to market and cut through the bs that it is going to be worth that $40,000 potentially? >> there is also the bad boy list as you mentioned before.

not necessarily this case but referral to the city attorney for litigation. >> the reason i digress. the more we expose this behavior that is going to help you and this commission not have to pays this stuff in the future. thank you. >> commissioner honda. question. >> sorry. we are on the same line of questioning. on this board we hear a lot of appellants members of the public upset developers contractors breaking the law and we need new legislation. overall, as i have contended in the books already. this particular i want to be

very specific. this particular permit holder demoed property without -- to get people ahead. is there a physical penalty for starting work seven months prior to getting the permit? >> if this is scheduled for director hearing it would probably result in order of abatement against the property. there would be extra fees attached. >> those are split specifically, what are those fees? >> i don't have those numbers in front of me. >> is there a specific penalty? >> yes. it is a violation. >> the other thing is $199,000 to do three level over a garage is a little light considering

that plywood is $78 a sheet and two by fours are 10 bucks. i would hope the department would review that more closely. >> thank you, commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> commissioners somebody want to start the conversation on this? >> i will. i think although to the appellants this is rough for you guys. you live there. what is before us today you have seen the commissioners ask serious questions. they are within the building envelope and got ahead of the project. it appears to be code compliant. the department is there on the big radar with another project. i don't see any reason to grant the appeal. i believe the permits although they got ahead of themselves

were properly issued. without further conversation my motion would be deny the appeal the permits are properly issued. >> commissioners any other comments? mr. lopez, lazarus? >> no. >> i just want to echo what you have experienced here is this commission's quite often frustration. we are going to deny an appeal. realizing there has been some behavior which is not in keeping with the behavior we would like to see in the city of san francisco. behavior affecting neighbor versus neighbor. i am sorry to the appellant but i have to support commissioner honda's motion. >> can we vote? >> yes. >> motion from commissioner honda to demy appeal uphold

permit on the basis properly issued. (roll call). >> that motion carries 4-0. the appeals are denied. >> thank you. we are moving to item 9. the adoption of the budget. commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption is the budget for fiscal years 23-24. you have had an opportunity to look at the budget in advance. we can quickly go through a few pages or for the benefit of commissioner lopez who wasn't here last year. during budget time basically if you look on page 3. also, i want to announce that

vice president lazarus has to leave. she will not participate in this. thank you, vice president lazarus. >> page 3, commissioner lopez the board gets revenues in two ways. surcharges on permits majority. 97% of the budget surcharges on permits issued by the various city departments. moving through on page 4. 65% of the board's budget covers salary and fringe. not much to do about that. basic costs. large chunk to services to the department 29%. minor expenses. special services, supplies. if we continue on right now we

have a projected deficit and last year we did have a deficit apdid just fine. i am not important weed. we have money to cover shortfalls. six months makes a big difference. we will see what happens at the end of the fiscal year. looking at page 9 for the fiscal year 23-24 budget. every year the controller does surcharge analysis in april to determine the appropriate surcharges. basically surcharges can be adjusted in two ways. cpi or through legislation. if it is increase beyond be cpi. we will see in the surcharge analysis based on the number of

appeals for the department, etc. if you have any questions, let me know. brief summary. it is late. >> thank you and staff for doing an amazing job and for preparing this. you are lucky that commissioner fong is no longer here. he used to have a ton of questions regarding the budget and always added stuff. unless anyone has a question i will make that motion. >> i am going to make a comment. the hour is late. i am an hour later than all of you. >> you are a year or two older. >> i am a grandfather. there you go. just one of the tensions here is with regard to fees. we have had some rathertum you rather largeyears.

i have been here seven years. in that time when i joined we had -- thing things were rocking and rolling. there was a significant surplus in fees. therefore, the controller's office in their judgment put a cap on fees. i think reduced a few fees. my concern was there will be araneida. we will need those extra funds that we are put anything our surplus. look what happened. we ran into the last two years which has been a pretty good rainy day. we have eaten up the surplus and

had deficit although it is not terminal. for commissioner lopez, it is impossible to have it be an exact science. it would sometimes go counterintuitive to what we might do in the private sector where we want to have a rainy day fund because in the city controller doesn't want to put too much burden on the citizens and on the filers. this is some of the dynamics in her good judgment julie and her staff go through to put together the budget because i know that i have no idea the future is going to bring. it is difficult. we don't know next year how many

new -- how much money will be for new construction, additions or whatever. god help us we have another pandemic. it is hard work. i want to give that background to commissioner lopez and remind ourselves how hard it is to do these things. i want to compliment julie and her staff for completing it. >> do we have a motion from commissioner honda. >> we did. >> to adopt the budget? >> i believe we did. >> do we have a quorum the three of us? >> yes. >> i make a motion to accept it and thank you and the staff for everything you do. >> thank you. commissioner honda's motion. commissioner lopez. >> aye and i echo the thank you.

>> president swig. >> aye. >> that carries 3-0. budget is adopted. >> thank you so much. have a great night everybody. we have next week off. see you in two weeks. 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 >> from (require everyone's attention and patience. if you're not speaking knew your microphone. to enable participation sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this year in life and we will receive public comments for each item on today's agenda. comments are opportunities to speak are available by calling 415 655 0001 and entering

access code 2488 986 6201. when you reach the item you are interested in speaking to pressá3 to speak. when you hear line has been unmuted that isyour indication to begin speaking . each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 minutes remaining you willhear a child indicating your time is almost up when your time is reached i will indicate your time is up . best practices to call from a quiet location , speakclearly and slowly and please use the volume on your television . we will call the role at this time, commission president tanner. [rollcall]

>> thank you commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items for continuance, item 1 009-6081. the 2025 chestnut street on a negative declaration it is a proposed continuing still march 24, 2022. 17 avenue with discretionary review. item 3, 00536, a conditional use authorization and under your consent calendar item 54 case 2020 is 6377 cu a, 4387 mission street and a conditional use authorization proposed forcontinuance .

sorry, let me get the right on . excuse me. march 31 2022. and finally commissioners, under yourdiscretionary review calendar , item 14 for case number 2021, item 00 4987 the rp at 2760divisadero street . members of the public, i'm going to open up public comment in order for you tocomment on any of the items proposed . only on the matter continued, pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed on

yourcontinuance calendar . >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue all items. >> second. >> thank youcommissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner diamond . [roll call vote] so moved commissioner, thatmotion passes unanimously 62 0 . placing us under your consent calendar, all matters listed here are considered to be routine by the planning commissionand made it up on

bicycle rollcall vote of the commission . there will be no discussion of fee items unless a member of the public so requests.in which event the matter shall be moved from the consent calendar and considered as provided with this feature. item 4, item 00998 cu a spear street a conditional use authorization and item 6, case 2901 seven 35 s phd, the property at 600 mcallister street for the adoption of shadow findings, item 5 has been continued.this is your opportunity to remove any of the items on consent by pressingá3. seeing no requests to speak from the public, public comment is closedand your consent calendar is now before you . i take that back commissioners there's a last request . members of the public if you

wish to have either of those 2 items on the consent calendar removed, is that what you're requesting? >> thank you for taking my call commissioners. i joined just a moment late and wanted to comment on number 202-1004 075 dear drp, 2454 francisco street. >> that will be taken up later on today's agenda closer to the end of today's agenda so you will need to pressá3 again to be added to the queue when that matter is called. right now we areonly taking comment on the consent calendar . seeing again no requests to speak from members of the public commissioners, the consent calendar item is before . >>.

>> moved to approve. >> on that motion to approve item 4.findings for item6, commissioner diamond . [roll call vote] so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 60 brings this other commission matters. item 7,considering adoption of draftminutes for february 3 and february 10 2022 . members of the public if you would like to address the commission on theminutes pressá3 at this time . seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public and on the minutes is closed .>> commissioner

imperial . >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call vote] so moved commissioners, thatitem passes unanimously 620 placing us on item 8, commissioner comments and questions . >> i'd like to kick off this session 1st happy lunar newyear . we had a parade this last week and other celebrations so it was a great time to be with the community and just wishing you all a happy black history month so thanks for indulging me as we been celebrating and contributingthroughout the year . thank you for that and i wanted to take a moment to express as

we been getting notes about reopening city hall and reoccupied cityhall for our commission here . i personally am so excited for when we come back in person as the commissioner who joined you all during the pandemic and have not gotten to be with you allaltogether as a group . i am looking forward to that day and at this time i do have concerns about coming back physically to city hall and being together at this moment but i do hope that maybe in the next month or so we can get to a point where some of the concerns would be addressed but also we can see the reopening accounting for the board of supervisors, other commissions and other aspects generally of life is hopefully going smoothly and continuing to have cases go down and some of the factors in my personal life i have been making me hesitant to come back also change and give me more confidence that myself and those who i'm caring and living with will not contract

covid-19 due to me but i wanted to share you with all that's where i am and ultimately shot up members of the public may be wondering when are we coming back, what are the hearings going tobe like just want to make an opportunity forthose who also want to share . i know commissioner diamond, you're on the phone . i'm not sure if you raise your hand or i didn't want to throw it to commissionerdiamond because i know she's got to leave in a bit if you'd like to share anythin about what she's thinking on this matter or other commissioner comments she may have . >> thank you commissioner, i appreciate that . can you okay on the phone lesson mark .>> we hear you . >> that's great. i too am very eager to be that especially if the numbers in our community continue to decline the way i have recentl . but i am also concerned about coming back at this point in time and i believe the staff has done truly a remarkable job in allowing these remote

hearings to function pretty well. it is not as great as we were in person but under the circumstances i think the remote hearings are working extremelywell . relative to the risk , especially for those of us who are in vulnerable populations for close to four are responsible for taking care of people who are in vulnerable populations or just for those of us who have different risk assessments which is one thing i have learnedduring the last 2 years is the of us is the circumstances differently . ibelieve that in the circumstances of the planning commission , there are some concernsthat i currently have . one is that we need in room which even in the best of times as very poor ventilation and

certainly has no ability to have the windows be open. we can meet for 8 to 10 hours at a time where although the public, each individual of the public may not be sittingthere the entire time, we commissioners certainly are as are the members of staff . and we don't know the number of participants from the public who will be there. the ad full ofpeople that could be dozens and dozens, maybe up to 100 or more at any point in time . we sit close together and i am quite concerned thatunder current protocols , there still is an issue out there. and i guess i would like to see us exploring some additional mitigating factors that might make some of us feelmore comfortable about returning . do we have to meet in our current room or is it possible to meet in a row where the

ventilation is better? while commissioners and staff need to be fully vaccinated, the public does not and i'm wondering whether or not we are permitted to have all vaccination requirements for those members of the public who wishto attend in person as opposed to remotely during this interim period . can we hand out n-95 for kn-95 masks to the public because at this point protocols would have people wearing cloth masks if theychoose . should we be adding capacity limitations together withsocial distancing ?i'm hoping over the next few weeks could be more conversation about some of these factors but in the meantime at leastat this point , i am in a vulnerable population and don't feel comfortable returning yet so thank you.

>> thank you commissioner diamond and i will call on commissioner imperial next. >> commissioner diamond, i think you were referring to a good point in terms ofwhat our measurements in order to return initially , i was excited to come back but after thinking about, thinking it through in terms of access to the commission by the public and also in terms of the planning staffas well and also a health risk within our group as well . not just for our group, everyone is going to get involved here . we need to have measurements to in order for us to have an in person meeting. i do not think right now that we have those measurements yet. so i am comfortable right now and i think the staff, all of the staff are doing the best

they can and also all of us do it in a pressure moment. it's hard to do the hearings remotely and being at home. however, there is a greater risk, there are bigger risks and it's not just ourselves. it's all the other people involved. that's actually the basis of my decision to also scale down the remote hearings because it's alsoall of us that are going to be involved . we need to have protocols and measurements set in place . >> thanks commissioner imperial and commissioner more. >> i've given this a lot of thought and while it is a bold move in a time when there is uncertainty i have decided to wait on the side of caution.

there are a number of reasons, many of you havealready touched upon them and i want to leave it with that . i will return as soon as possible and i will continue to dedicate my time and attention to the responsibility of being on the commission as i have done in the past two years even as virtual and thatincludes all of us . these meetings are thoughtfully conducted so i to remain virtual. >> thank you, commissioner, >> i as well wanted to go all the comments of the previous speakers. not only do you see us here virtually on the computers but whatyou don't see is our media friends , family and some of whom are in close contact with that maybe first responders, nurses and my father is an

elderly vulnerable position and i see him sometimes on a daily basis and i would never forgive myself if for whatever reason i who am fully vaccinated even was able to get him fully vaccinated for the sake of doing things prematurely when these rings are being run so successfully thanks to all the hard work and effort with the department and staff doing this and the technology department. so we do all want to come back as soon as we all feel safe. not just for us but for other members of thepublic and we should do this at the right time . >> want to thank you all for sharing your comments. i don't know mister secretary if there areadditional updates regarding returns that you had wanted to update us on. we should be aware of in addition to the medications i think we had last week . >> yes, since we are on the

topic i am happy to notify you that the mayor's office and liaison to the commission have been in contact with us as well as the city administrator's office on the improvements that have been madein city hall related to returning to in person hearings . we actually met yesterday and were provided a brief and and i am scheduled to come to city hall room 400 on march 1 on tuesday in anticipation of returning to in person hearings toget trained on the new equipment . i personally am curious about the hvac system and the promise that it has been upgraded, but for now that's the only update i have. i appreciate all of your concerns and i share many of them. >> thank you and the board will begin meeting in march aswell ,

is that correct? >> to be honestwith you i don't believe the mayor's mandate impacts the board . i don't have any indication. i've asked whether or not the board would be opening up their chambers to members of the public . they have their meeting in person but it's restricted to only supervisors and staff and as you all know we are all required to be vaccinated. so there's a much smaller risk related there. their chambers actually provide appropriate distancing and hav very good ventilation . so i don't know what the timeline is for the board of supervisors to open their chambers to members of the public . >> i think reminding us we have deadlines

>> .there are no questions we

canmove on to item 10 . the board ofsupervisors and board of appeals, commission did not leave messages . >> good afternoon commissioners, erin stark, manager of legislative affairs. the committee concluded two landmark designations, one for the building at montgomery and the other four dba allegory of california located at 155 simpson street known as the pacific stockexchange . one montgomery constructed in 1908 with the addition of 1920 is historically significant for its association on the reconstruction ofthe financial district . further, it's architecturally and historically significant as an excellent and well-preserved example of early 20 three renaissance revival style. it's initially detailed its hierarchic value and it was

crafted by arthur putnam. the hpc recommended approval of the landmark designation august 1 of last year and the land-use hearing the heritage spoke in favor of the designation and recommended approval to move forward. allegory california was recommended for a landmark designation by the hbc november 2, 2021 . allegory of california was created by diego rivera between 1930 and march 1931 at the beginning of rivera's first visit to san francisco and this was rivera's frescoin the unitedstates . allegory is culturally historic . it has an association with pre-mexican artist diego rivera. the first fresco painted was also significant on the new deal era works project administration and was removed in the 1960s and 70s. the fresco is significant for its association with the lack

indexcommunity and its significant part of san francisco cultural heritage . the land-use hearing this week or last week, sf heritage and latino historical society in support of the designation. supervisor melgar spoke to how important this fresco is to the community and supervisor melgar and mandelman joined as cosponsors. the committee considered supervisor mandelman ordinance that would allow accessory use for services and as you recall this wasamended at the previous hearing to include changes to the zoning tables. they were continued from one week . at the hearingsupervisor mandelman made opening remarks and reiterated the need for the district . chair melgar duplicated the file to introduce amendments to theavenue cte which had specific parameters due to his view of activity .

supervisor melgar's comments were not addressed.there were only two commenters, one in cautious support and the other who stopped for a more relaxation of the rules around massage use. the committees afforded the item to the full board and also to duplicate the file with supervisor melgar's amendment so this ordinance will take a role in the near future. next the land-use committee heard the substitute version of supervisor mandelman's large home legislation you heard this item on september 23 and recommended approval . the supervisor did revise its proposal based on comments he heard from the commission hearing. the new ordinance reduces the effective area to just district 8 and increases the conditional use authorization trigger to 3000 square feet or 1.2 f ar.

it increases the expansion of allowance for dwelling units already over the maximum 10 percent to 15 percent over the course of 10 years and it revised the grand selling flaws submitted on or before january 1, 2022 . after some general favorable comments, the land-use committee votedunanimously to move the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation . at the full board last week, this is all from last week by the way. the full board last week the hearing for the cqua appeal was continued to march 1 and 18 months would require conditional use authorization for all service uses. since this is an interim control it will not come to you for a recommendation. it will have to go to the land-use committee and the full

board for resolution. if the not vetoed by the mayor wouldtake effect 15 days after the boardfinds it . that's all i have for today . >> unless the zoning administrator change sounds differently and as previously stated the preservation commission did not yesterday so we should move on to general public comments. this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest in the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address the committee for up to three minutes unless they see the 50 minute limit general public comment may bemoved to the end of the agenda. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the

commission by pressing á3 . youwill each have 2 minutes. when you live has been on unit that is your indication to begin speaking . >> i request that you modulate the meeting, you have an agenda item that states you're doing a public discussion about these exemptions of virtual meetings. it's buried on their every time you haven't had on the planning commission calendar but we really need to have discussions like what you have today, especially supervisor diamond. we need ... there are basic problems. one is that the time limitis 1 to 2 minutes was just announced even though your rules it's three minutes . but the whole thing is relatively limited. 2, the meeting started on along

time but ball mechanism about calling on people, takes time. and there's a whole lot built into the schedule about getting people on screen, etc. some second thing, you can't understand who's speaking because there's a blank screen during public participation so half the people don't identify themselves . wecan't tell who they are . it's very frustrating to figure out how to deal with comments when you're watching on tv. another comment i would say is how much has the staff been trained about how to do, how to comment audibly because it's very very hard to hear some staff people. they don't seem to be trained tospeak into the microphone . so i'm frustrated by these

virtualhearings . i appreciate your difficulties, commissioners but some of us really want to have them back at cityhall . thank you. put that on your agenda for a discussion item at the next meeting . >> is georgia shootist, hope you have a nice break and as you said, no eval is subject to demolition that i spent some photos and i've shown these before but i think they're still pertinent if you could please show the first photo. the project on the left is now complete . as you can see and i'm assuming it will go on the market soon but i don't think it's gotten into cfc yet but it's been unoccupied since 2017. the other project on the right in this first photo, obviously is not complete andhas been

unoccupied since 2015 . please show the next photo. you can see in this photo that this is originally two flats, the one that's basically gone. it's gone and it could have been fixed up to maintain the two separate class but originally the project sponsor will make a largesingle-family home with a tiny unit behind the garage and as you can see the project on the left is still intact and occupied . but during the work on the two flats, the scope was exceeded and determined to be taken up to demolition. if the count had beenadjusted, reduced flats could havebeen preserved and could be occupied now . please show the next photo, the third photo . this shows both of them, the project on the left doing the work. this project is now complete as you saw in the first photo and needed to revise its debt during thework and while it was very close , they did not quite

cross the threshold. so if the been adjusted maybe a simple remodel that the project is going to be with a high price once it split. so reducing the values as i talked about is just not about counting pieces of wood, it's the bruiser of housing allowing reasonable alterations and i would urge you to please review your docket number zero6.0070 et. thanks a lot, have a great day . >> okay, thank you.last call forgeneral public comment . you need to pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional request to speak, general public comment is closed and we can move on. for items left 11 am to be, as hd and hp that's921 (street . you will first consider shadow

findings. miss hoagland, areyou prepared to make restitution . >> good afternoon president tanner and members of the commission. linda hoagland, planning department staff. before he was the home sf project pursuant to planning code section 206.3 and 328 located at 920 10 farrell street the project includes the demolition of an approximately 3500 square foot two-story commercial building and new construction of a 53,479 road square-foot 14 story over basementmixed-use building . the project will include 50 residential dwelling units with approximately 801 square feet of ground floor retail space, approximately 2666 square feet of usable open-space from accommodation of private deck

and common roof deck and 50 class to bicycle parking spaces. nooffstreet vehicle parking is proposed as part of this project . the project is located on a through lot with approximately 40 feet of frontage along farrell street and 40 feet along all olive avenue. the project site contains an existing two-story commercial buildingthat is currently vacant and was last occupied by a restaurant use which closed in december 2020 . using the home sf program the project is receiving development to allow form-based density and oneconditional story of height . in exchange for providing 25 percent or 13on-site affordable dwelling units . the project is also receiving zoning modifications from the rearguard, open-space requirements and minor exceptions for rearguard

open-space street frontage and demolition of commercial space. to date the department has received two letters in support of the project and none in opposition. according to the project sponsor community engagement has been conducted for the project including a community meeting with a lower pulled neighborhoods on may 1, 2018 . a pre-application meeting on october 6 2020 and presentation to the housing action coalition design reviewcommittee on january 26, 2022 . as part of the project approval the commission will need to adopt findings with the recommendation of the recreation and park commission that made a shadow on sergeant john mccullough park would not be adverse to the use of the park. the departmentfinds the project is on balance consistent with the van ness corridor area plan

objectives and policies of the general plan . the project will maximize the site and increase the cities helped by including a totalof 50 dwelling units 13 of which will be designated as on-site affordable units . to help alleviate the city's housing crisis . thisconcludes staff presentation . i will be availableto answer any questions . the project sponsor has also prepared a presentation. >> project sponsor, are you with us? you have five minutes. does he have presentation slides? >> yes we do if you could put them up. >> they're coming up now. so starting yourfive minutes . >> that afternoon planning commission and members of the audience. my name is davidbaker, architect of 921 (street.

next . this is the site. near the amc theater, uc van ness to the left. next. this shows agreat transportation area . both the new bart about to open up on a van ness and there's a bus redline on o'farrell and a nice semi protected bike lane on polk street. next. this shows the building in the area. 140 foot building with 50 unit . next. this shows the ground level. it goes between o'farrell and

olives and there's about a story difference sothat's what that cutline is about. this is the ground level on 2 different floors . next. this shows the retail space next. this is the common area. the lobby and circulation, . this shows thevertical circulation . next. and the service areas, the fire control areas, things likethat . next. above there's 4 units per floor. one of the nice things is you are no limited bedrooms and they are, all the living rooms face the two streets. then there's bedrooms off the white court in the middle. next area this shows the top floor. we took a two units on the top floor at those two units have their own private deck and then there's a nice shared roof deck, shared with therest of the people in the building .

this shows the rear yard that must be required by zoning which doesn't make sense, you look atthe buildings in the neighborhood they tend to go street to street . next. this shows that side court honoring the light horse apartment building next door. next. at the request of the planners and i think it's a nice idea we did this massing at the bottom which is in with the neighborhood massing and the typology of the neighborhood. next. this shows the existing situation, next. and this is the building. there's a piece which is lower than the building next door and then you see a stitch that sets in the top of that piece that comes right up to the street and defines the street wall. next.this shows the ground

level with retail store, next. this is looking up and you can see that stitch and these bays and balconies coming out. it's a sort of a 24 and that we did a win study for this and this helps you with the wind because the wind blows down th building and ithits that notch and gets confused . it doesn't come for you at street level, next . and then this shows us pushing that roof down a little bit and we have that side area with all the circulation and surges in it, next.then this is pushing and about to make this interesting buy ins with these great bays and decks. next. and then those bays provide private open-space and then on the top of the public open-space, it was chaired open-space, notpublic but shared with the units .

this is a view of that through the miracles of digital modeling. really great, not huge but private, not looking at any units . and really i think it's going to be well used for a place to go with mushrooms or burgers. thisshows it looking out, really fantastic view . i'm almost there that's looking outfrom the elevator , next . then before, next. after. next. this next one is olive street and you can see the decks there providesome cheating as well . next. thank you very much.

>> thank you, that concludes the project sponsors presentation. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressingá3. that is your indication to begin speaking. you will each have two minutes. >> my name is jim chappell, a 45 year san francisco resident and urban planner by training and a member of thehousing action coalition . this project is exactlywhat san francisco needs . urbaninfill at its best . it's an underutilized site steps from the fan, the van ness crt served by many bus lines, walkable downtown . reasonable size units designed to be as affordable as one can be in sanfrancisco . makes for use of the site and is an unusually beautiful design. commissioners, please give this project your unanimous approval today. not only to get these 50 units going but to signal to other landownersin the area that this is what they should be doing

also . we're in the midst of a very serious housing crisis and we need many more projects just like this. back you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. on behalf of the housing actio coalition also in strong support here today . i believe you do have our report cards submitted. i wanted to call out two of the areas which received three stars on your report card which is the highest level that we recognize projects. one of them is in density. this is a home san francisco project so that is getting unanimously passed by the board of supervisors, we collectively figured out that this housing and these types of proposals are the exact types that san francisco can and should be building as it relates to unit

mix, on-site affordability and it was designed to be an alternative to the state density program. it's supposed to be more in line with what san francisco goes along with and unfortunately we're not seeing many opponents of that project get interviews so we really want to commend the team for having something that's in front of you today that we are all hoping can get built. the otherpiece that we want to highlight is our parking and alternative transportation section . no car parking, lots of great parking on-site and an area of the city that has easy public transportation access with a number of muni lines. this project does check all the boxes, it's fantastic and as the previous speaker we request that you approve the project heretoday. thank you very much . >> good afternoon

commissioners, my name is roger robert oakland, i live in district 5. i'mcalling in support of the project . i think the shadow impact is extremely minimal. i think i saw a report, it's the 0.06 percent increase in shadow primarily in october and february at 5 pm. i mean, who's out right now at 5 pm at a park infebruary? it's extremely cold . i don't think it's really the shadow is something to worry about. housing component is great. we need more density bonus projects like this . commercial use with housing is great. i just wish we had more projects likethis . on the left side especially in

single-family neighborhoods, they're not dense enough to meet san francisco's housing so thank you. >> last color for public comment on this item. please press star 3to be added to the queue . seeing no additional requeststo speak by members of the public , you have 2 minutes.>> good afternoon commissioners, my name is ty pat and i'm the owner of 222 and his avenue on the corner of 200 street from the proposed project site. for the past three years i've been following the progress of the proposal at 92100 with anticipation and admiration and has been making its way through claim after review i would like to voice my enthusiasms for

approval following reasons it utilizes a scr for a total of 13 units. it provides family size housin with 50 percent of the units being two-bedroom or three-bedroom . it provides with the transit improvement planyour completion , it supports a parking free residential lifestyle. with residential entries on both o'farrell and holland it will activate the street. i believe this project is exemplary in its design design, utility and functionality and will be a welcome addition to our block . please approve. >> thank you. final last call for public comment on this item. seeingno additional requests to speak by members of the public public comment is closed .and

both the project and shadow findings. >>. >> there are a number of comments made by the public which resonated. exemplary i think summarizes it best.this is a well-designed project and i'd like to really put this again into the category of projects the commission itself can learn from . we have many flights like this projects that we are seeing come forward as uninspiring because all they dois extrude and maximize the site .from edge to edgelike 100 percent . this made a wonderful example of how to use the light well to draw the building into the courtyard feature and create

context between older buildings and contemporary housing. what impresses me is not only the unit but the emphasis on larger units but also the fact that we can gain out of this constraint site 13 bmr units. that is think a higher market. with response to both o'farrell and olive are well done. all it is much stretched as an alley into a well lit, well proportioned alley except it has an empty lot and it has been for years and years frequented by drug users. i'm on city hall every day and announcing a building, online which will alleviate that and bring life to this valley and it's going to be extremely important. i'm in full support for it and would like tomake a motion to approve . >> i will second that motion.

i will call on commissioner imperial. >> i would second that i want to say my peace interms of the project sponsor using the old sf . this density bonus that our city has and i would like to thank the project sponsor for choosing our local program of density bonus. and i think we need to encourage more of our, their project sponsors to use our local sf project because these are some things that was legislated and fitted with the community in termsof the density that should be for san francisco. so again, thank you . >> out just add my support. what aninteresting building, very thoughtfully designed . definitely brings a focal point and point of interest which i think will be exciting to see. i do want to ask the project sponsor. i'm excited that there's parking here so we're

dedicating a really maximize space that can support housing and that's kind oflabor to provide those 13 bmr units that are part of this . if there's any room to have additional space , just considering there is no car parking, residents hopefully will be relying on their two feet but they may need more space for storage if there's any room to add more on-site parking. >> yes, we have parking in the building. and we've put some cargo back parking in as well. but we're maximized. it's a tight site and these taller buildings, i don't know if you saw. there's a big room on the ground floor, a 10 by 20 foot room so afireman can run in and fight the fire and it just adds

a lot to the building . there's allkinds of requirements like that. we've done most of what he can and i'll say having my share , i am well served. >> that's. true, i've written here and it's easy with e bikesto get up and down that hill depending how far up or down for going . with that, any other commissioners hands up? thank you again. >> very good commissioners on that motion to adopt the shadow findings and approve the project . [roll call vote] >> that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and we will place us on items12, a and b . item 00196. it's dua for the property of

350 ocean avenue. you will considershadow findings and conditional use authorizations . this includes state density bonus programs. the floor is yours.>> good afternoon president tanner, commissioner. department and staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization for concession and waivers for development standards under the individually developed state density program and request for production of shadow funds for the demolition of two existing one-story commercial buildings and the construction of a five-story , 55 foot 35 unit dwelling unit residential building which will include 15 offshoot parking spaces, 36

class i bicycle parking spaces and to class to bicycle parking spaces within the neighborhood commercial transit one district and 40 5x district. the building includes 18 two-bedroom units, 13 one-bedroom units and four studios which range in size from 415 to 830 square feet in size. under the individually requested bonus programs the project is approximately 5.2 percent densitybonus . a concession incentive from the open space requirements, waivers from the exposure and height requirements. in order for the project to proceed the commission must grant the conditional use authorization for the development of a lot of 4000 square feet pursuant to planning constructions 121.1 through three and 750. adoption of shadow findings

pursuant to 295 as recommended by the department of recreation and park commission that a new shadow by the proposed project will not be adversely double parked and adoption of findings ability to request concessions and waivers pursuant to planning codesection 206.6 in california government code code 6515 . prior to the submittal of the conditional use authorization and associated applications the project sponsors did conduct a pre-application meeting on april 25 2018 and most recently a second pre-applicationmeeting was conducted on november 18, 2020 .members of the public that attended the meeting raise concerns regarding the amount of parking space, size and density of both projects. to date the department has not received in support or

opposition but the department has recently received a correspondence from the adjacent regarding individual privacy and safety impacts of the proposed bill. in conclusion recognizes approval and believes the project is valid for the following reasons. the department finds the project is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable phones to the planning code. the project will maximize the use of underutilized plots and construct a new five-story basement residential building in close proximity to public transportation,public open space and jobs . the project will increase the city's housing stock by providing a total of 35 new dwelling units six of which will be designated on-site rental. 18 percent of the projects total units and the project will comprise land-use compatible with the zoning district and the building that

is responsible compatible with in the neighborhoods care given its height, size andbuilding extremes .this includes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions .>> thank you gabby.project sponsor,are you with us ? >> can everyone hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. you have five minutes. >> the proposed project is to

construct a newfive-story 35 unitbuilding , six of the units will be permanently affordable . the park will cast some minor shadows on the state park and baseball diamond to the relative amount of0.018 percent . the project wasapproved unanimously last week by recreation and parkscommission. next please . the site plan shows the intricate sheep of the parcel . the slot side also requires a conditional use authorization for any development and were also separately pursuing that bonus authorization.

weare requesting a minor deviation from the rear yard requirements which are the de facto enlargement of the midblock open space . the existingwould be relocated and reduced resulting in a gain of two on street parking spaces. next please . the basement contains 15 below ground parking spaces including 188 dennis space, this ratio equals about 42 percent of unbundled parking spaces. next please. the ground floor contains thre units with one facing onto the street . the two in the back private rear patios. we also have 10 in storage and 36 bicycle parkingspaces . next please. this shows the typical second floor plans with eight units on each floor. overall wehave 18 two-bedroom units , 13 one-bedrooms and four studios . all of the bedrooms have access to natural light and air. next please. the open space requirement is met by a large roof deck which

is mostly landscape. we reduce the occupied areas to the fire department interpretation by story count which would change the construction type and increased construction costs.solar panels help power electric vehicle charges. next please. the front fagade design breaks up distinct volumes. the ground-floorserves as a base with predominately anti-graffiti stucco . one residential unit has a frontage along the residential entry. security cameras will help protect the residents and nearby neighbors. on the upper floorswe have alternating days projecting from three taco fagades. aluminum sunshades provide additional depth and energy savings. you can also see a slight slope to the site that was located at the garage door at the lowest portion on the right side . next please.

this shows the section with th garage renting down to basement parking. you can see how the lightwall provides natural light andair to help cross units . we've also removed the property line windows from unit to meet at the request of our neighbor . next please . this rendering shows the building looking northwest. we continue around the right . we have had several meetings over the course of designing this project including three with the adjacent owners of 320 ocean avenue . we feel that arrangement of the mid-block open space will help get more light and air to their rear yard. in order to fit our allowable massing the only other option would be to increase the height of the building and therefore passmore shade upon the park. next please.this last image shows the buildinglooking northeast .and in conclusion we feel this project is

designed to maximize site potential while minimizing tax forthe neighborhood . the neighborhood is already benefitingfrom recent rezoning of this project will add or below-market rate and it . the race has several neighborhoods over the past five years as well as discussions with the district supervisor and other groups. thisproject provides new housing for families within an established neighborhood and when reviewed at the planning department and recreation and parks department it fully complies with our residential design guidelines .we ask that you grant a conditional use authorization and shadow request . >> thank you. that concludes public presentation and we should ope up public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission in this matter. press star three to be added to the queue and you will each

have two minutes. when you hear the line has been a muted that is your indication to begin speaking . >> go-ahead caller. >> can you hear me?>> you got twominutes . >> this is ernesto sabella from oceanavenue , the neighbors had mentioned. we are a family home. located right next door. i have 2 children and two elderly parents and my wife and i have worked from home. we are concerned with the burden that this would be placing on our property. theshadow, the garage location . the structure, they will be escalatingto get the 50 parking spaces our home was built in the 1930s . and then i think they should make more concessions to try to minimize the burden with the lighting. i think the bottom part of

their building that is adjacent to our property is painted brown. i don't think that's considerate of the facts that we're going to be sandwiched i between two apartment buildings since we already have one four-story building on the other side . and we ask that you just put applause to this project and have further discussion. kevin mcavoy the owner of the property when i asked him to provide us with understanding of the security's answer was i have insurance for that.my kids lives aren't worth being lost over this. so i asked that we put the pause to this project and discuss further the security for my family. that's it. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners, my name is

david. i serve as president of thenew mission terrace improvement association and we've had several meetings withjeremy and kevin mcelroy . i realize that there's underutilized space , that the project is in a building that has long since seen its use in departments will go up there. i would like to draw attention to one particular planning issue and that is the ground-floor apartment to the west of the main entrance to the building has street access to it. the original design of the building had apartments on either side of the main entrance that would have redundant access to the street. one of them is now gone because of requirements in the design of the building. i would like to suggest that the building should be modeled and there should be a twin to either side. and that was the entrance, the

redundant street entrance to the apartment on the ground floor, the west side of the building next to the nightclub be better designed and be better utilized and would have more privacy for the sake of the tenant if this street access was done away with. that the building had one main entrance, one secondary entrance at the east next to the garage. i'd like to point out this is not an apartment in a row as you see on seneca and as you see onhow many . and on ocean avenue with the presidio bay, this one unit is redundant. i'd also like to say i appreciate the fact there would be pedestrian lighting on this side of ocean avenue from the building because the streetlamps are on the other side of the street and they required trees will not provid , they will diminish the lighting from thestreet to the point where pedestrians will be

at risk . thank you . >> thank you, last call for publiccomment. press star 3 to be added to the queue . you have 2 minutes.hello, caller. >> i like to reiterate what the first caller mentioned. we do need more time for discussion. due to the pandemic, things have made things a lot more awkward and i do believe more discussion would help the project and also be a benefit to theneighborhood in general. thank you . >> good afternoon commission. i support, my name is robert

kaufman, i support the project. i also believe that there are because it's in the state density bonus project there is limited action that the planning commission can take. in order to deny the project. i would recommend that you ask the city attorney's office what your options are on that so thank you, goodbye. >> okay commissioners, thatwill conclude public comment on this matter . onthese items now before you . >> thank you staff, thank you project sponsor. while i'm waiting for other commissioners to chime in i was wondering if you could walk us through the exposure for the

units. i think there's 17 or 18 that don't have the required exposure and correct my understanding , that is partly because of the rear yard being not the distance and the shape ofthat rearguard not complying with our code . could you walk through that and if we have a slide you might show that mightshow the rear yard and where those units are facing . >> gabriella, canyou go to slide three ? >> site plan diagram. >> so the long story short is i had the state density bonus, we're allowed to develop a certain amount of volume and our options were to go into the backyard by an additional five or 10 percent like we did here or to explore adding a story to

the building which we are hesitant to do due to the shadow it casts on balboa park. so you're correct a few of the units which only have exposure on to the rear yard are lacking in the literal code interpretation but they do face onto that mid block open space. which does allow a lot more natural light to the units there. >> just to maybe part of what we've had discussions about and i've had concerns about other projects requesting exposureis when they are facing an area that could be developed . so when where there facing it seems like there is limited risk of future development, further diminishing the access to exposure those units have and maybe it's not the same for all units given the can figure

ration of the building and the lot lines. they it's a little odd perhaps. idon't know if you could opine on that kind of future impacts of potential development . >> the properties to our north and east are also are each one. i suppose in theory they could use sb nine to build out into the backyard but otherwise that area would be restrictedas a rear yard . the properties, the two properties to our west are similarly zoned in ct one. those could be built up but that would not align with our building. >> thank you for that. could you talk a little bit about and some of this might go to you in terms of our code requirements but ground-floor units my understanding of code is part of what we do when we don't have ground-floor retail is to have a housing unit have astute or thatporch access to that unit but i do hear mister

cooper's concerns .given the location is not part of a string of homes at least at this point in time where the development is for that. could you all consider not having that outdoor on street access or is that somethingthat code requires ? would you be interested in tha reconfiguration? mister shaw, if you had considered some type of release onthat . >> ask for your question. so in terms of the ground-floor , they are providing that transition from the public to private realm. that comes from our residential ground-floorrequirements . in terms of having an active use so we want to activate the funding, we don't want to have a blank slate and the way to do that when we're providing residential dorm units is to provide a buffer so that you don't have to well units that are essentially opening out .

you want to provide transition and a way to do that is to provide report or some kind of landscaping to act as a buffer betweenthose two areas . >> commissioner tanner, i believe you are muted. >> that would be hard to hear methen. i just wanted to ask mister shot if he had concerns about the ground-floor unit . >> i don't know if concerns is the right word but i think it's that we wouldn't have that direct access. i think in that sense we would agree with mister huber that it might present a little more security risk and reward. >> and then he also asked abou additional lighting . i think you mentioned that

there would be lighting. could you refresh what you stated? it sounded like maybe that was partof the benefit ofthe project would be lighting on that side of the street . could you describe that ? >> absolutely. the building is designed with three bays across the front and we would propose on the underside of all those bays there would be lighting which would be sent to the photo timer. so that overnightor in rainfall the lights would switch on as well as the main residential entry would have lights that come on as well and the ground-floor forthat matter . >> that can definitely be a benefit for the neighbors and anybody, pedestrians walking along the street at that time . i see that commissioner imperial is up and i'll call on him next. i'm open to think about background level unit and typically i like to see the activation of the street with a door facing onto the street but also to understand maybe it may

not be appropriate in this location. long ago when i was a planner i used to be active at the intersection quite often . so i know while this location and the long desire for it to become something other than what has been and become more of a benefit to the community so i'm very excited overall but i wouldbe curious if other commissioners share concerns about thatstreet facing door on the ground-floor . mission or . >> i have a question to the project sponsor in terms of the conversation you had with community members. there are three public comments and the two of them are requesting for continuance and it seems like i noticed that you did follow through in terms of doing public notice but i'm wondering in those public needs, on those meetings and the extensive or the

extensiveness of the discussion that you had especially the nearby neighbor and also with other associations. so can you elaborate on that? >> sure. this project has been in the works since 2017. as gabriella mentioned we had topublicly noticed neighborhood meetings as well as a few other conversations . we spoke with our neighbor on the east side prior to them purchasing the building as well as twice since then. and we of course understand their concerns aboutsafety and security and all that . we will do our utmost to make sure nothing bad happens. i've course can't promise that the project is going to be flawless but it obviously

behooves us and the developer and the neighbor to all get along because we could for instance benefit by their building a setback six or seven feet so we could benefit by being able to place scaffolding on their property in exchange, do all the indemnification and that sort of thing but are confident that the development can be built safely without impacting them in any hugely negative way. >> thank you forexplaining that . i think perhaps the other neighbors as well perhaps need a little bit morecommunity outreach . and i'm not sure if you are putting a community liaison in terms of the construction. i do believe there are perhaps initially concerns during the construction time and the committee needs to be informed

about that. so i think that's what i'm kind of usually what we would say here and in the commission is how is yourcommunity outreach and how is the conversation you had with the committee as well .so that's my question. my one concern to is actually the shadow impact on the nearby park that's going to be almost two hours and usually of course how i would decide on the impact of the shadow is the time, where is the shadow being tested on since usually public areas are also open spaces and we think we need to protect. that's also one thing, one concern is the shadow impact. however i know the limitation for us because it's estate density bonus is based on the

design perhaps the mapping of it. so those are my concerns. i'm actually would be, would like to hear what other commissioners say or mentioned but i would like to have the project sponsor to have more conversation with the committee as well especially if there are concerns during the construction zone. so that's my comment. >> thank you commissioner. vicepresident . >> this is a difficult project and i'd like to share a couple of observations and then ask mister shelburne some questions. the acute angles of the site presents a very difficult site to design the building and my question is why did you choose to completely replicate the site of in the shape of the site in the form of the

building? i know many of these projects are driven but the need for parking in a transformer room seems to be influencing the massing and shape of the buildings. and that is one other comment was a general comment. i would let the state density bonus encourage into a sf project we reviewed earl earlier had significant giveaways and areas which i believe are vital to designing affordable housing.the fact that we are seeing open space deficiency, we're seeing rear yard deficiency, seeing 18 units that lack proper exposure including waiver makes it very difficult to be very enthusiastic about this projec . again, acknowledge the shape of

the site. but i am concerned that sensitivities for example of affordable housing units in the back or not fully taking advantage of what could be done.the question i would like to ask you from what i've said, why would you allocate a large amount of open space to be accessible from the bicycle storage room? why would your units put into that part of the site when the units could have open space as the other two that operating into the northern part, could you answer that for me, for those commissioners who would like to see what i asked are open to look exactly for that topic .

>> mister shaw. >> you had a few points that you asked me to address so i'l try and go in order here . you're right thatthe site has a very acute angle . the front corner, original design in fact did notfill that in . but when this went tothe residential design advisory team they asked us to do that . in the theoretical event that when the building to our side, our website doesget built that there would be seen as a kind of got there on the street level . i guess i'm kind of agnostic about. if you thought it would look better to have that back i think we could do that. it's just a closet space right now. then you mentioned the transformer. that area was originally allocated asanother unit .

that would have been there 36 unit. however, it's our understanding that i believe january of last year pg and he essentially said statewide that they would no longer authorize any sidewalk transformers where the sidewalk is i believe less than 15 feet and where just under 10 feet. so at that point we made the tough decision to remove that 36 unit and instead put in transformer rooms. we had a couple of conversations with different agencies and representatives and he said they might be modifying the rule in which case we love to put that 36 unit back in and put the transformer in the sidewalk. that would absolutely be our preference. lastbut not least you mentioned the bicycle storage . right now, there's i don't think it's showed up on the drawing but there's a 25 foot

setback requirement for the bicycle parking so it does need to be in a sort of rear of the building tosome extent . it's entirely possible it could be moved forward somewhat but it does need to be towards the back in some way or another. and we did explore putting another unit back there instead of the tenant storage.and swapping the bicycle room. that's something we could continueto look at . >> i think it would be important to have ground-floor open-space exposure for units instead of having each of i don't know how many feet you have there. 28+ dedicated to the bicycle roomhaving a window . it's really difficult given the deficiencies of open space on the project.

i think you would get better ground-floor. reformatting the size of your storage room together with an appropriate shape of a bicycle rule internal to the building i think would be a much call and give a lively important outdoor exposure tothe open space to the unit . we are at in front of this commission are other projects from the last year . we found applicants put the transformer under the sidewalk. it is very awkward to have at this particular moment the transformer door the identical to the width of the main entrance. we didn't quite know where you are going given the setback of the transformer and the slightly more recessed entry door. the fagade for the pedestrian entrance is the main inviting feature of a residential building.

i think he doesn't really have president of over how to get to the transformer. these are all comments. i regret we have a shadowover the park . i regret that the project needs to basically fill out the side in all its acute angles. so i would actually like to see that this project has a little bit more work done including medication with the neighbors and that would be my comments for right now. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner fung. >> this is the state density bonus program and i'd be prepared to remove the adoption of the authorization of the conditional use and adoption of that shadowfindings . >> commissioner mark, or is

there a second weston mark. >> i'd like to make a motion to continue this project to give it a little bit more time to answer some of the questions. i think this project has the potential to fly through and beasts fully supported. at the moment i see a number of errors that will test whether the project could make improvements and i make a motion to continue . >> commissioner tran moore, is there any timeframe we are considering? >> i would ask to engage in tweaks in the building andhave more conversation. i would say it would be 4 to 8 weeks . could you help me with that please? >> i think the main issue is going to be communicating with pg and e which does take a little doing. i think 410 6 weeks does sound

about right. >> that will put us about april 14. >> i'm fine withapril 14. if mister shouse is not ready we can always give it a bit more . >> seeing no further requests to speak from members of the commission there is a motion seconded to continue this matter to april 14 . on that motion, commissioner fung. [roll call vote] >> i think wehave commissioner diamond that should be joining

us . >> well, i will ask the city attorney'soffice if they are with us . i'm not sure commissioner diamond can participate but this is a procedural matter. often commissioner diamond was not with us for the duration of thehearing but didrejoin us once the public comment was concluded . can she vote on a procedural matter ?>> austin yang, deputy city attorney. the commissioner hasnot heard , notmade their decision based on all the testimony provided . and it does not feel like commissioner diamond is able to at this moment go back and hear what others have said. i just unfortunately do not think she's able to vote on

this motion. >> that's my understanding so thank you for that clarification . city attorney yang. given that this is a procedural matter we do not need 4 votes and would need a simple majority. the motion to continue his successful 3 to 2 with commissioners fung and tanner voting against. that will place uson item 13 for case money 21 8810c , lyon street. thisis a conditional use authorization .are you prepared tomake your presentation ? >> yes, thank you jonas. thatafternoon commissioners . the item before you is prior conditional use authorization 1994.580 5c to eliminate all

conditions of approval of motionnumber 13897 , the subject property is at 1520 lyon street located in the rh to zoning districts. it consists of a childcare facility. back in 1995 the facility required a conditional use authorization for establishment at florida planning code section 209.1 and 203. along with other conditions one of them required that no more than 65 children meet at one time at the facility. subsequently in 2017 the planning code was amended for ordinance 189 17 which made childcare facilities permit use in all zoning districts except for pdr. this project aims to function as a principal accommodated use for the current planning code and expand capacity to 125

children at the time of the subject property. no motivations are proposed to the existing schoolbuilding . the project sponsor has also applied for a dedicated passenger loading zone or facility itapproved pickup . the planning has already been issued. the department has received a total of 26 letters in support and three letters in opposition. the letters of support expressed praise for the school's service to the neighborhood and encouraged that this proposal will allow the school to broaden its mission. the letters of opposition expressed concern about increased traffic in the vicinity of the site and the potential loss of parking spots . they will not have any conditions of approval associated and if approved i believe the notice of special restrictions will be issued . in summary the project complies

with the zoning and possibilities and provides a valued service. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm here for any questions . the applicant has apresentation and i will hand it over to them. >> project sponsor, are you with us ? project sponsor? project sponsor, are you with us? >> i am, can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine and yourslides are up . you have fiveminutes . >> that afternoon, my name is kylie thomas, executive director of the little school located in the western tradition and i'm also born and raised in sanfrancisco . i will provide today abrief overview of our school and our requests . the little school is a private nonprofit preschool founded by

young children in san francisco at the developmental child center experience. they have a relationship-based philosophy held by pillars of childhood equalityinclusion and

>> i think thewhite curve zone will solve a lot of the traffic issues in the neighborhood . i'm not one of the people driving,that's it. thank you for listening .>> commissioners, thank you for hearing our proposal today. i'm and erwin, a parent at the little school and have been for three years. i am a native to the western tradition, i was raised in the western tradition just blocks

from the little school. i'm also the third-generation western addition native in our family. my daughter sasha has been at the little school for three years as a fourth-generation western addition native and i'm proud to have herin a preschool in a neighborhood in which we have very deep roots . we chose the little school for sasha because we felt that it really reflects the heart and values of this city and particularly the neighborhood . and we are two working parents, where both in public service. my husband works for the city andcounty . i run a nonprofit. it would be tremendously helpful for families like ours if the little school is able to increase the time that the younger childrencan be there . i think i speak for a lot of the two parents working families that you are often

doing a jungle with parents and sometimes you are forced to choose a preschool option that maybe isn't the best fit for the or the closest to us. because of coverage. and what works for 2 working parents. it would be wonderful for the current working parents and working families at the school and all of those to come if the school is able to accommodate us for a little bit longer and ourchildren for a little bit longer .we adore the school and i'm so proud of the fixture it is in the neighborhood. thank you. >> this is stephanie stinson, can you hear me ? >> we can hear you just fine. >> we are a current family at the little school. we have one child attending there now and although the

little school hasdone a great job off-site , their lessons accommodate morefamilies and in our families case we have two children .we have tried earlier this year with both of our children but the little school could only accommodate one with full-time care . and since then he's grown to be such a good human and good public service for the city. if this unit is approved it will allow both our children to have childcare since it allows both of them to be there full-time. where both working parents so it'shard for us now to find childcare that will accommodate both children . which makes it hard for us to drop off and fix ups as well. since being at the little school it's been delightful to see the new friendshipsour son has made and the progress he's made so far . we hope this is approved so both our children can gain.

and that's it, thank you very much. >> can you hear meokay ? >> we can hear you just fine. when you hear your line has been unmuted that isyour indication to begin speaking . >> i'm the tosha and i'm a current parent and a neighbor of 1620 lime street. as full-time working parents we just want to extend our enthusiastic support of this upgrade that seeks to match the number of students to their current license. the little school has been a critical art of our early development and we strongly believe that more children in the city shouldhave access to this kind of high-quality early

education . we fully support the submission and hope that this civic section will allow it to broaden its reach and serve the diverse student body. so yes, we support this and hope to pass through. >> my name is hillary axelrod andi wanted to share with you my experience with the little school and why it's important the school is available to as many children as possible . my husband greg concepcisn on the on the call today. greg is a veteran special agent with the fbi and we've started a new position within the bureau while be speaking on his behalf and onbehalf of our three children josephineand lawrence can set you . he we feel incredibly lucky to

be part of this incredible diverse and thoughtful community . this is the second your little school justjustine started during the pandemic at the traditional kindergarten. noel is currently attending school and will be there next year . along with mytwo-year-old son lauren in the fall so we're kind of busy at the little school. we will have three kids going through . and earlier we feel so fortunate to be able to have access to some early childhood educators. like a few people on this call, i made a sanfranciscan born and raised here . i've lived most of my life here and i've seen the city changed a lot over the years especially in the last 10 years when we seen housing prices skyrocket along with the cost of school tuition and afterschool admission programs as well. i'm currently a stay-at-home parent and my husband is a federal employee with a salary so in other words , along with a lot of growth in the fbi there's not a lotof growth in

our yearly income . the little school greatly acknowledged our financial situation and has provided us with this kind of tuition so we'reable to have access to high-quality education . not only are we able to attend school at discounted rate but children are also able to access summer programs at a discount to. summer camps are expensive especially in thecity. last summer were able to attend a little school camp for six weeks in the summer and i was so grateful that i was able to afford it and the little schoo helped us do that .that being said, we fully support the cua and we hope you do too and thank you for your time today . >> this is kathy schenker calling, i'm a 35 year resident of san francisco and in 1990 when san francisco became the first city in the us to pass children's amendments dedicating funding for early childhoodeducation , ienrolled

my oldestchild in the little school . three more would follow .my family far surpassed our expectations and it was palpable. it was then and still is a magical place. students learn the art of conflict resolution, respecting and encouraging others. compassion and effective communication skills. along with exposure to language, art and science. parent education was robust guiding us through child development challenges and thereby creating solid scaffoldingfor families . it serves as an invaluable resource. it is not an exaggeration for me to say that the school's philosophy played and integral role in my family priorities and values. 30years later it remains the gold standard in the language

we speak .i now have a grandson of the school and am blessed to have thebenefit of such a strong foundation for life . 15 years post graduation i witnessed my children had their middle school peers excel in their academic endeavors read but even more importantly as compassionate and thoughtful leaders in the school that every little school graduate and my children's local high schoolheld an elected or appointed leadership position as a compelling endorsement . in my estimation it's not a coincidence that the product has an extraordinary foundation for creative problem-solving, collaboration and emotional intelligence that began at the little school. not only did the school's teachings continue to have a profound impact on my family but the promise of building a generation of compassionate leaders and citizens is a tremendous opportunity for children in san francisco. thank you for your time and

consideration .>> my name is kelsey and i'm a parent at the middle school. i've had the opportunity to be at the school inmultiple ways. my mom has been a teacher when i was10 years old . i've now been there about 25 years . i always knew if and when i had children i would do what i could to get theminto the little school . now when i have a daughter there i realized it was the right fit and i really hoped we could share the school with more families like ours.we are afro latino and native to san francisco. i'm a single mom and my daughter has food allergies that require anepipen as well

as hearing issues that require surgery . because of this i was so worried when i began at daycare's but knew it was necessary for me to work full-time. the little school is so thoughtful about every single child and families needs. not only does the school and the family communities follow dietary restrictions, but the teachers and staff at the little school are already supporting me and getting ahead of the game with their hearing issues that can cost speech delays. they've been screened for speech development at the school and she's so loved while she's with her teachers in class. as a parent i'm always worried about giving my child the best education possible for her success and being a part of the little school community feels

like the key thing that happened. i'm a single mother and it's hard living in san francisco providing for my child. and i look forward to sharing my experience with other families like ours. >> good afternoon, my name is erinkeith and i am apparent at the middle little school. we've been at the school for five years with two children whoattended . he's still a student and our older child is now a student at creative arts charter school . my husband and i are both a full-time working parents. my husband is a full-time touringmusician and i work for a nonprofit . our children have been in the extraordinary care program at the little school and we are

also lucky to be recipients of this kind of tuition program. and honestly, before we enrolled at the little school before we received our discounted tuition offer from the little school we were considering leaving the city and moving out of the bay area because we were worried about the cost of affording the little school and it felt like sorry, according any preschool. it felt like maybe the cost of preschool and the city an addition to the skyrocketing cost of housing basically priced us out of the city. so the little school has provided us with an opportunity to stay in san francisco. we love san francisco. our families are here. my husband moved to his family moved to san francisco whenhe was in college .so we feel very lucky that the little school has provided us with this kind of tuition program.

the school itself has also provided us in its support in terms of helping our specific needs around our children. they have child development specialists thathelp out in addition to parent education classes .that help with specific issues that parents face awaiting kids in this age group. i wish every child had access to high-quality early childhood education that's offered at the school and we feel lucky that that's been offered to us. thank you. >> caller: hello, my name is dixon mckenna thank you for the opportunity to support the littleschool . we have one found funding measure for last year , who

will begin next year and one who will begin in 2 years. i've been apparent in san francisco andwent to little school several years ago . it's a joy that my kidsare able to have the same experience i did . and it's even better to experience the school as a parent.parenting is this hard time and the value of the school has influenced the way we operate and how we want our family to treat each other and others. we want from school every day, you probably see that with three kids at our stroller. i often, i have people asking me about living in the city and it's about our experience and it's difficult to raise kids in san francisco. does the city prefer dogs to kids and things like that and we found that's not true and this has been a wonderful place to raise our kids since we have

this first world-class school for our kids in this neighborhood and particularly the cause they offerthis great extended care so we can work and no our children are nurtured and safe and most of all really loved . so many of the parents who called in just wish more children could have the same opportunity to attend the little school that we have and that frankly our kids could stay longer. thank you for your time. >> iq, last call for public comment. pressá3 to be added to the queue. you have 2 minutes.>> caller: my name is samantha carol and my grandson attends the little school . he only attends 2 days week and both