[crowd noise] [music]c]c]c]c]c]] >> good evening and welcome to july 6, 2022 hybrid meeting san francisco board of appeals. president swig is the presiding officer and joined by vice

president lazarus and commissioner lopez. commissioner chang is accent. also present is (inaudible) at the control is legal assistant (inaudible) julie roseen burg the execive director and joined by representatives by city departments. corey teeg is representing the planning department joining remotely. matthew green acting chief building inspector depament of building inspection. chris buck representing public works. henry (inaudible) deputy city attorney representing department of public health. jennifer (inaudible) principal environmental health inspector representing public health and (inaudible) environmental health inspector with department of public health. the board request you turn off or silence phones and other electronic devices. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates permit holders and respondents are given 7 minutes to

present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include comments within the period. members not affiliated with the parties have up to 2 minutes each to address the rebuttal. mr. longly will give a warning 30 seconds before the time is up. three votes are required to grant appeal or modify a permit or determination. if you have question about rehearing board rules or schedules e-mail at boardofappeal@sf (inaudible) and we will have the ability to receive public comment. sfgovtv is providing closed captioning. go to cable channel 78 and it is rebroadcast-a link to the website is found on

sfgov.org. public comment could be provided in two ways. call-enter webinar id82436978295. to block the phone number first dial star 67 then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star 9 the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing can wh it is your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you have two minutes to provide public comment. our legal assistant will give a verbal warning. there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast, therefore it is important people call in reduce or turn off the volume on the tv or

computer. if any participants need a disability accommodation or technical assistance make a request in the chat or send e-mail to boardofappeals at sfgov .org. the chat can be used to provide public comment or opinions. we will take public comment from the members physicallyprint in the hearing room. now we'll swear in and affirm all those who intened to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking the oath. if you intend to testify and wish to have it board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say i do after sworn in. do you swear or affirm the testimony is the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. thank you. if you are participant and not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. we are now moving to item 1, which is general public comment. this is a opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter

within the board jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar. anyone who wishes to speak? i see one hand raised. john nulte, please go ahead. >> good evening. i want to know why the hearing is not being broadcast on zoom and that's my question. it was in the past and now hybrid meetings why isn't zoom also being shown so people can see it on zoom? thank you. >> okay. >> i like a answer. >> do we have a follow up alec? i didn't realize there is a zoom issue. >> you can view it on the zoom i believe on your computer. the link syncs up to the actual room on zoom and then

sfgovtv projects the tv broadcast so you can watch both simultaneously. they dont coincide with each other because they are different plat forms. for example i am seeing it says clerk's desk. >> that's because the clerk's desk is the main party that is broadcasting for the sfgovtv. >> thank you. any further public comment? please raise your hand. okay, i don't see any further general public comment so we'll move to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. any commissioner comments? >> commissioners, any comments, questions? missing a few people. practicing social distancing. no comments. thank you. we are fine. >> okay, we'll move to item number 3 adoption of the minutes. before

discussion adoption of minutes of june 15, 2022 meeting. >> commissioners motion? >> move to approve. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to adopt the minutes. any public comment? please raise your hand? i see a phone number ending in 1405 raising your hand. did you want to provide public comment on this item? please go ahead. phone number ending 1405 you may need to press star 6. >> thank you. no comment on this item. >> okay. thank you. so, we dont have any public comment on the item, so on vice president lazarus motion to adopt the minutes. commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> okay, that motion

carries 3-0. we are now moving on to item number 4. this appeal 22-039 koheba gift incorporated. subject property is 2310 market street appealing april 6 to koheba gift inc. by director of department of public health. 10 day suspension of retail tobacka permit t-87168 due to illegal sales flavorered tobacco. we'll hear from the appellate first. is the appellate present? mr. alee is a agent for the koheba group. we did want get a indication he was not appearing but we did not receive a brief from him. president swig do you want to just go out of order, maybe give him time or-?

>> have you heard from him? >> there is somebody in the-on the zoom. >> this is the person it is possible him. the phone number ending 1405, go ahead, please. please dial star 6. okay, you should be unmuted now. go ahead. >> sorry. (inaudible) >> okay. >> that's not the appellate. president swig should we try giving him a call or do you want to just wait, go to the next item? >> go to the next item and push this-make this the last item. >> okay, we do have department of public health representative standing by so we probably shouldn't have them wait too long. >> let's go one item and try this again. >> okay, we'll move on to item 5. 22-040 gordy holterman versus san francisco public

works. property 2350 green street appealing issuance may 3, 2022 to archdiocese of san francisco and school. approval to remove 5 street trees with replacement of the condition of the replacement trees are a minimum of 36 inches box size and property owner works with the neighbors and buf staff on the selection of a replacement. >> just to dive in. we are very fortunate in the neighborhood to have a very knowledgeable arborist who represented us during the hearing. unfortunately the hearing itself was very poorly attended by many of us because of the both the relative lack of notice and it was just a inconvenient evening for many of us. plus, we were

surprised it passed given genevieve anderson's very thoughtful commentary during the hearing itself. but we wanted to make clear to the city that not only are these trees quite healthy and typically have a life span of 60 to 75 years and they are just over 20years, 20, 25 years into the life span, but it just is very confusing and vague how the conditions around the hearing approval or the permit approval are meant to be carried out, so specifically backgrond from the brief, this agreement between the school and neighborhood goes back all most 30 years now, 28 years, so there is a private

contractual agreement that the school is to maintain these trees. specifically in that legal agreement it says that the trees will be grown to full muchurty i suppose we can argue if that is full life span or full size. they have another 40 healthy years ahead of them and frankly the ones-one of the trees was sort of mutilated by the school several years ago and replaced with a pitiful looking cherry tree, but otherwise the trees are in great shape and we are a little surprised that the tree inspector at department of public works agreed to the destruction of them and we are still sort of amazed

by that. most importantly, we just in addition to saying that the trees are super healthy with lots of life left ahead of them, the neighbors are more then willing to take care of these trees. we already water them because the school doesn't adequately water them, but more then willing to help pay for the cost of pruning them and have reached out to the school several times about trying to do this. i thought it was interesting when i filed the appeal the school is like who will have the legal liability if a branch falls down or something and i think we are happy to take on that property that the trees sit on if that's the school's desire, but it also should be understood that not only they are a private contract around those trees, but the timing of this

tree removal probably has a lot less to do with the trees actual health then the school's recently obtained permit to do some work on the school and so all the neighbors sitting going, wait a minute you just got this approval to do some rehab work on the school, which by in large the neighborhood supports and then all a sudden you take down all these trees and we are left with this view of this parking lot. i think there's just some question marks around what the school's real motivation is here and there is just tremendous ambiguity from the hearing decision itself around what exactly the school would have to do to illegally remove these trees. i think i wrap up there and give you back my extra time.

>> thank you. if you are finished we'll now hear from the-we have a question from president swig. my apology. go ahead. >> mine as well get this out of the way. mr. rus se, can you give us ground rules please with regard to-how we separate church from state? had no punt intended. i'm sorry. just my bad mind at work. we have a through this brief there is-in testimony, there was mention of a civil suit and then we are here on an appeal. can you give us the ground rules on separating the civil suit from the appeal so we dont muddy the waters and go in the wrong direction, please?

>> sure. deputy city attorney brad russe. my understanding there is a claim there is a contractual agreement between the neighbors and the school. my further understanding is that the city isn't a party to that agreement and there is no assertion of any other development restriction associated with the prior city permit that would prohibit the school from removing these trees, so the board can certainly consider whether there was a understanding or agreement previously with respect to these trees, but the board is not a place where a private civil contract would be enforced, so if the parties have a dispute they believe there is a contractual breach of contract claim that would be something they would bring to a court. unassociated with this permit. so it would

be your advice then to stay focused on the appeal as an appeal related to a tree removal as we would hear weekly on other tree removal like appeals? without consideration of any civil action? >> this is denova hearing. you can consider the evidenceprinted but whether there is a breach of contract the city isn't party to isn't something you need to concern yourself with enforcing. >> okay, thank you. >> just to be clear on that , the city wouldn't have liability for allowing somebody to breach a contract? >> i don't think we are at a question and answer. you do have two minutes - >> sorry, we-you can bring that up in your second section and

argue that point. we can't answer that. thank you. >> mr. holterman you are finish ed we'll move to the determine holdser and hear from the archdiocese and mrs. penny is here. >> good evening. thank you. >> sorry, we cant hear you. can you please move the microphone forwards or up maybe? it is possible the other one might be better, to your left. >> that good? can you hear me? how about this one? can you hear me now? >> that is little better. >> can you hear me now? i just need to project. thank you for the hearing tonight. i have a power point that i shared with alec. the reason we

submitted for a permit to remove the trees was that in january 19, 2020 one of the trees fell during a wind storm and did some property damage to the parking lot, the paraish parking lot and so we immediately took care of the tree, we got tree shredder and got rid of the tree but luckily there was no damage to humans or other property accept for the fencing which we took care of at a later time. >> your presentation is up. direct alec- >> okay, can you go to the next slide? there is just a picture of the tree when it had fallen, and the next picture will be on the inside of the parking lot. next slide. sorry.

you've gone ahead. should i just continue? okay. >> we can pause your time. >> that's the first slide. >> thanks for your patience everyone. okay, here

we go. >> here is the other side of the parking lot where the tree had fallen. on the next picture, you heard

discussed a master plan for the parish and school facility and this is elevation from the phase 4 of the plan, which shows a sport court on the parking lot and then the tree-the reason the photos here is the trees are in (inaudible) there was no intent to remove trees and not have trees there. if you go to the next slide--after-during the pandemic the tree was removed and i have a picture, a rendering of the trees in existence. the one ong the right is the cherry tree am holterman mentioned. not sure when the original ficus tree came down but the cherry tree that was replaced is not fruitful. x marks the spot is the one that fell during the wind storm, there is two other

ones. the one circled is pictured on the far left and shows the diseased trunk of the tree. when the original tree fell, there was a lot of root rot and it looked like the person that was helping us, the tree trimmer helping us remove the tree said it had been plant ed in a plastic pot and it looked like there had possibly not rooted properly, even though the trees are very beautiful and green. the next slide please-shows the rendering of pierce street and two trees circled are also photographed with the tree trunks that show there is some issue with the growths of the tree or the health of the tree as far as the arborist concerned and then the final slide is the master plan. once again reiterating the intent is always to keep the

trees. our hope as a representative of the parish and the school is to work with the neighborhood and work with the bureau of urban forestry and potentially replant-replace and replant these trees with something that will grow and be fruitful instead of what exists currently. thank you. >> thank you. we do have a question from president swig. if you please go back. thank you. >> is there a reason--is there a reason you did not present a brief prior to this hearing? >> i'll just say i'm a novice. i didn't understand what was required and the parish currently does not have a pastor just has a new pastor now. >> just to advice you and it doesn't matter with you, last

week-when we don't get a brief it places this panel in is severe disadvantage and public at severe disadvantage because we dont know what we are talking about if we are not properly advised and dont think it works to your advantage because the appellate doesn't have a chance to properly prepare to know how to talk with you and all that. i am sorry i have to bring it up because them is the rules and let you know it isn't advantageous to you not to have submitted a breef. it is just advisory. >> i totally accept that and responsibility, though like i said, there was supposed to be someone in charge of this and not me. >> okay. let me ask you one question, you said in your brief that we will have a plan to replace these four trees. why with all of

this-there is clearly been time, there was one tree has been-was problematic and that it fell down. one tree is problematic in that it seems to have failed. there has been time, it is a day to day ocurance, are you coming to the panel without a plan or are you looking to us to give you that plan because we are-this is the problem we don't have a brief- >> i completely understand. so, we had reached out requested the permit, got the arborist to attest to whether the trees were healthy or not and he came out, dan i believe, i have spoken to chris as well and we were waiting for the bureau to advice us on what trees the city would permit to be planted, so that we

could move forward and then we got the appeal so we waited. >> okay. i'll speak with mr. buck about it. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, we'll hear for bureau urban forestry. >> sorry one more question. >> commissioner lopez. >> just a question. i think my sense is if there was a planting within the plastic pot seems that would have been decades ago so it may precede your time on this project, but there was also some statements from the appellate about lack of maintenance and maybe some conflict between the archdiocese and neighborhood about who was in charge of caring for the trees. if you can just seek to that

general maintenance and those types of concerns and it sounds like you are working with a arborist now it sounds like with buff as well so not sure where those actors have entered the picture, but if you can give us a little backgrond on the general maintenance and how you worked with experts in this area to take care of the trees. >> the experts are from the bureau of urban forestry so chris and dan are who i have been in contact with regarding potential replacement if they deem them unhealthy or sick. this was 1989 i believe, what mr. holterman brought up so yes i wasn't there, i have only been there 9 years, i have been here 9 years. when the tree fell over and this is what we are trying to discover. when the tree fell over it was planted in a plastic pot. one of the arborist i spoke to said

that's not unusual if the bottom is like hollowed out so the tree roots will grow downward instead of outward and disrupt the sidewalk and so these trees are not necessarily in our property. the are sidewalk trees so we are just trying to do due diligence to try to take care of them, and if you see the photograph, i believe that mr. holterman submitted from mrs. anderson's home view from pierce street you see they look very healthy. they are very luscious green, large top heavy trees. my concern when i submitted the permit was if this one tree fell would the other ones possibly have been planted similarly and of the five i showed you circles-the ones damaged the trunk does not look healthy and so that is

my unexpert opinion of what i have seen and who i have spoken to and how to move forward. that is what we are waiting for. when the appeal came through i was working as a principal so, i didn't have time to move forward and it was handed over to the parish who like i said, just got their leadership july 1, so he is made aware of this appearance and this appeal and i will definitely work him into the picture and then he can definitely take it on with the finance council at the parish level. i am at the school level. i'm just trying to help out. does that answer your question? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. you can be seated now. we'll hear from the bureau of urban forestry. welcome mr. buck. >> good evening commissioners. i will pull up the

power point. just take a moment. chris buck with san francisco public works bureau urban forestry. good evening commissioners. i have a power point and i assumed that the permit holder the respondent would submit a brief and just made contact with them when that deadline came. i didn't receive one so i'll try to fill in gaps you feel may exist in this permit. we received tree removal application from the property owner for removal of 5 ficus trees with replacement. the street trees are ficus trees and they are the back of sidewalk but still technically within the public

right of way. ultimately the city assumed responsibility for the trees as of july 1, 2017 through prop e. that said, the applicant reached out to us when they had a failure and they were concerned about the other trees. when we evaluated the trees there is some unknown information regarding of these 5 subject trees proposed for removal how many may be in a container. it is the above ground conditions of the trees that actually we can see with our eyes as exprtert certified arborist that have us concerned. the staff level we approved the tree s based on our well established concerns about the ficus trees and how the trees fail. if we can move on i will show the images now. the issue with stems

of similar sizes is that they work -they force themselves apart and this caused a lot of ficus trees to fail in san francisco. there is a lot more known about the importance of early structural pruning but only in the last 20 to 25, 30 trees is that common practice to prune trees when much younger to enhance structure and prevent the failures taking place. several years ago, public works recognized this public safety issue and we created a director's order. i wrote a bulk of it that talked about how and why ficus trees fail. these are examples of ficus trees with stems of similar sizes with very weak unions and they are literally

split apart. this is visual of our director's tree removal criteria for ficus trees. the trees themselves are not overly large. i say they are on their way to maturity. there are two trees on the green street frontage and 3 trees on the pierce street frontage and they all have very poor structure prone to fail and i wanted to make sure that we showed these images. this is what we emphasize that our public works hearing, daniel hoffman who is a well qualified certified arborist. we attract some of the best arborist in the country. san francisco has a world class reputation having a little proactive approach to the environment and being certified arborist in san francisco is a pretty highly coveted position, so i would our staff is highly qualified to identify the potential structural defects. as you look at the subject trees you see not only do they have very

poor structure and also dekay as well, which is not something i typically bring before you. in this situation we have two major issues, both the poor structure but also-from public work perspective this is a straight forward case of 5 ficus trees in very poor structural condition. they have codominant stems including bark and dekay present at the main unions so this is the basis for our approval. we do have a empty basin we need to replant on the pierce street frontage so that is something that we'll need to do. that concludes the visual portion of the power point and then to circle back to some of the points raised, one of the photos that the appellate shared was pretty compelling. a few across the street from pierce and it really does show how successful the school has

been to create that canopy as committed to in that private agreement and so i do feel for the appellates in this situation. i understand that these trees look shiny and green. it is look liking as a shiny car and having a parent tell you no, no, the engineer is what will make this thing sus inable. the structure condition of the trees is very very poor. the timing of the project and the phases of the site is not related to our staff approval. as you all know, we are arborist, we put the blinders on with what is going on on site and we evaluate the trees based on their own criteria. there was some statements made about ambiguity regarding how the school would have to illegally remove the trees. we had third

party agreements come before us at public works before. the city attorney has straight forward language, straight forward in legal speak. it is in the resulting decision that references that the city does not provide legal advice to members of the public concerning private contractual agreements, which the city isn't a party. there is the rest of the paragraph. essentially it up to the permitee to act on a permit if they have feel they have the right to do so. from staff's perspective, this is a really straight forward case of removal of 5 ficus with replacement. 36 inch box replacements. i was not involved as both parties seemed quite equip to go to cover this. the school seems very opening to discussing the specious with the public so i wouldn't recommend a continuance, because i have a commitment from the school we can work with the community on

replacement specious, large statue trees at maturity. it is a really straight forward case to us and one lessen learned is i should have reached out to the applicant to make sure they were submitting a brief on time. the experience i had with them has been they have been very organized. we have been in touch quite a bit prior to the public works hearing and so i just was caught off guard with the lack of a brief, but i thank you i feel confident about their commitment to plant replacement trees. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig then vice president lazarus. >> three questions. two should be short. one, who owns the trees? the city or- >> the parish. >> technically the public owns the trees, the city has jurisdiction and the city has responsibility for the maintenance of the trees. >> right, the

maintenance, but who is going to-who is responsible for paying for the replacement of the trees? >> the school is because they submitted removal application to pursue removal, so the school would establish the replacement trees for three years and then the city would assume responsibility after three years. >> second question, we on this panel have seen many examples of ficus failure and over the last i think two to three years especially there have been significant examples of ficus failure. those who wish to save every tree damaged or not in the city would claim that we have to save every ficus regardless of damage or deterioration and others who are a little more pragmatic about it. but, for the benefit

of the appellate, because i think it is a is key point in your presentation, can you out of your memory cite a couple locations where there has been failure damage and harm either to living or not living objects of value? >> thank you commissioner. it is really occurred throughout san francisco and if you were to google or search ficus tree, san francisco there is lot of very dramatic images of ficus stems split and fallen across the street. we had one in front of the main library. the corridors had a lot of ficus trees planted along hyde street and russian hill, lumbard street, columbus avenue (inaudible) we had a

serious near fatality, a serious injury to a person that is subject to a claim and settlement with the city, so it has been throughout the entire city, and it's been the failures are occurring where these structural defects exist, so it is something that became a much more common acurns as these larger trees mature, 30 to 40 years after planting so we still will evaluate them individually as you all know, and that's our approach to these five trees and the way these stems are attached you couldn't prune them to mitigate the risk at this point in time. >> third question, another shorty. i see the recommendations, 36 inch box, the concern of the appellate is obviously maintaining

the canopy or getting back that canopy, which is mature over a couple decades. why not 42 inch box? >> one of the challenge of the site is the trees are located-at some points in the school representative can explain it better, but there is a grade change with the parking lot on some portion of the property where it dropped down several feet and so we will expand require them to expand the basin into the path of travel a little bit to accommodate the 36 inch box. that was sort of the largest we felt we could make work on that site, but that is a point and i meant to bring a photo showing the interior of the parking lot that certainly on the pierce side there is a drop in grade. i hadn't considered whether 48

inch box would fit in the site. one olive branch for the appellate is that we do know the smaller the tree the faster it establishes and catch up with the larger box replacement. it will happen. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. vice president lazarus. >> thank you. i want to clarify that there are five trees-is one of those the cherry tree that replaced the ficus? >> no, commissioner, the cherry tree, the street tree towards the curb, so it is a tree the cherry tree replaced a ficus tree that had been removed so that is not part of the literal proceedings this evening but i can assure the appellates we can look at the conditions of the street trees planted towards the curb and look at opportunities if any of those trees are not thriving to look how to beef up the

potential canopy replacement trees in those sites. >> okay, so we are talking five ficus trees and each of them individually has got problems that warrant their removal? >> it does and the tree i referenced that failed was not part of the five. that was a additional tree. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we are now moving to public comment and president swig indicated it would be two minutes. if you are here to provide public comment please raise your hand. we are taking public comment on this item. please raise your hand. you may need to press star 9 if you called in on zoom. i don't see hands raised. okay. michael nulte, please go ahead. you have two minutes. >> my name is michael nulte. i guess i just had a couple

questions based on the presentation. one is, how many trees will be replaced after removal? how many basins? i wasn't clear about that. and, it seems to me that if there is an agreement that maybe a similar agreement needs to be made to keep the trees in place for maturity because it will take three years to get to-three years to start the planting and do the watering. so, that might be something that the appellate can consider doing, doing a new agreement with the parish. and, it is too bad a brief was not made so the public could better understand what the actual plans are for the

parish because it is confusing when one side has given the information and the other side has not provided adequate information for everybody concerned. i dont see any reason for continuance, and i hope the decision makers come up-(inaudible) thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from john nulte. you have two minutes. please go ahead. >> yes, good evening. can you hear me? >> yes, thank you. >> great. couple issues that we are bringing up is that the presentation that presented was january, so it does not show the current condition of the trees that was 6 months ago so this is a problem (inaudible) only presents what he

presented back when it was first heard so therefore we don't have updated pictures of what currently the site looks like right now for the commission to actually see what the trees look like currently and it seems like no party seems to be showing the actual as of today or this week pictures of what these 5 trees look like so it is conjecture because they are not showing what the current condition of the trees are. for the board to make a decision they need current information, not 6 months old or more information on the trees and inadequate information, so trimming the trees would probably be your first bet to deal with some of the issues but i dont hear that on the table and since i was at the first hearing i still think that there were a lot of people that were at the

hearing and discussing dissatisfaction of the removal of the trees. thank you. >> thank you. is there further public comment on the item? please raise your hand. i dont see hands raised so we'll move to rebuttal. mr. holterman, you have three minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the president's comment he made very good ones. the school and church already have a variance in a rosedential neighborhood that provides itself on green scape, a variance where they don't have to have yards and trees like everybody else in the neighborhood does. the few trees they have they are talking taking down and while (inaudible) is very caresmatic and delightful to speak with, frankly we lost trust in her. i had a open invitation with her 9 months now to

meet about a number of issues and says let's get together and we never actually meet. why is it-last minute she comes up with this presentation and she highlights how in the buildsing permit request they made-that was approved last summer they talk about keeping the trees? the minute they get approval for the refurbishment activities all a sudden request to take down these trees? doesn't that seem strange? the trees that fell fell two years ago. if we take down every tree because there might be a branch that falls down or a tree that falls down san francisco would have no trees. i am not sure that's consistent with the carbon offset goals of what most are trying to achieve. to mr. nulte point the trees are in

fantast ic condition and how is it the department of urban forestry can't recommend pruning the trees? i wish gene vive was here. we offered to pay to prune the trees to the extent that they feel like that would prolong the life of the trees, which we believe already has substantial life. i just can't state enough that to mr. nulte's point these trees are in excellent position. mr. hoffman worked for pg&e. are you kidding me? he knows one way. that is take down trees and not have the hassle. there is so much ambiguity around what is replaced so the president's point, why don't they put bigger trees and to stand up there and say smaller

trees grower. of course 2 foot grows to 3 feet and that is 60 percent growth versus a 6 foot tree growing 7 feet. they grew one foot. that is moronic statement. we plant smaller trees so they grow faster. please that destroyed your credibility and we are more then happy to pay for pruning. >> thank you. we have is a question from president swig. >> do you have is a suggestion for a replacement tree? >> to the extent these trees want to be replaced, a ficus tree is a beautiful tree and i agree pruning methods are better today. we would be happy to work with the school around a large bushy type tree like a ficus or a maple. the cherry tree they planted by the way was on slide 5 of the presentation in the upper right, it is a scragling little thing. you sit and

go-yes, we are happy to work with them. >> thank you. thank you. i don't see further questions. we will now hear from mrs. penny. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. i'm sorry, you are upset mr. holterman i hear and hear you. i think where we have come to contention is that we have been in pandemic and lost our pastor in june of 2020. he passed away and so we have been managing the school the last 2 years during the pandemic and we haven't had-we only had interim administrative support at the parish and we just finally got a pastor and so i can all most guarantee that the parish will be reaching out to mr. holterman. i was instead stepping in for the parish and the school being really the only

administrator on site, so really this is a parish issue and the school has stepped into support as best as we could, not being a lawyer. not being privy to what trees are and being a specialist and arborist. i do trust in the bureau of urban forestry and in their opinions and i would love to keep the trees if at all possible, but what i heard chris say was that the new way of trimming these ficus trees makes it very difficult to do it now at what maturity level they are at because the branches have already grown in. right? so, however we can resolve this, i would love to be able to make sure that the parish connects with the neighbors and that they can find some resolution that moves us forward and gets substantially healthy grown trees and grows them

quickly. i love those trees, i dont like to get rid of trees. i speak for the trees myself sometimes. >> we have a question from president swig. mrs. penny. thank you. >> again, we are a little disadvantage because we didn't get a brief. you gave us a overview of your renovation plan, and where-if the trees were not considered for removal, how would your renovation plan go forward? and if it is the coincidence of the potential of these trees being removed, does that change the renovation plan? where does the-this the disadvantsage of not able to study.

how does renovation plan effect those boxes which house those trees? you have any idea? >> the intent was to keep those trees. they are pictured in the renovation plan so the intent was to keep them. >> so, any renovation is really inside that wall? >> it is inside the wall, correct. >> so it doesn't matter whether there is renovation going on or not? okay. >> we would work with the city and protect the trees, which ever exist there. >> great. thanks. appreciate it. >> thank you. we'll now hear from bureau of urban forestry. >> good evening commissioners, chris buck, public works. so, just a couple points of clarification. one thing and i guess you could take it for what it is worth but our urban forestry inspectser

dairl hoffman when he approached me there was a general maintenance person of the school all i heard from the person is public safety and they got a issue and he wanted to talk about pots below ground. we have our ears up, we have our radar up for construction related impact s, altearier motives and never had the sense here. that said i completely understand the appellate's loss because that photo provided by i think mrs. anderson is compelling and wanted to include it in the brief because i want him to understand we see that. the trees are doing what the goal was to shade that and screeb screen that lot. that said the trees are in very very poor condition mpts we disagree on that, and what happens when you plant a larger tree, it takes a while to establish. it all most sits there a few

years so it is bigger at first. it is bigger, but the younger tree smaller plants establish more quickly and it will out-strip that in size after a few years so i wanted to clarify that. again, i understand the frustration here. again, relatively straight forward removal of 5 trees, replace with 5, 36 inch box trees. the applicant-we want to discuss replacement specious with the community, the appellate. we can also look at the applicant willing to plant a 36 inch box size tree in a empty basin as well and we could look whether or not that cherry tree is sus tainable or public works should replace where the matching specious we all settle on. i do think there is opportunities to try to come together despite the fact that unfortunately these trees are really in poor condition. thank you.

>> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> obviously one of the concerns here is timing. should we move to allow these trees to be removed. you know from history of dealing with this panel that it is our concern that sometimes trees are removed and it takes a while for them to get replaced and then we have empty ty boxes and that creates problems with the neighborhood. what can we do here-what can you tell us about timing? if we were to move forward and allow the removal of these trees, what would be the timing of the remurfbl removal of the trees and how quickly and nimbly could the trees be replaced so as not to further outrage the neighbors? i use the

word outrage because clearly the appellate is noticebly upset and i would be too. how does this work and can you put at ease the concerns of the appellate that there wont be any trees for a long time and then it will take a long time to reestablish. >> thank you commissioner. the permit that public works issues typically allows the property owner 6 months to act on the permit to remove and replace the tree, the subject trees within 6 months. i will say that based on feedback as highlighted from the community, what i encourage and perhaps could be a condition or the applicant may be able to commit to it, but reducing the time between removal of the

existing trees, removal of trees, removal of stumps, then preparing those sites for the replacement trees, but shortening the amont of time between tree removal and replacement and doing that in as tight a manner as possible so that it's less of a sore point. >> you have a suggestion as to what is realistic and probable? >> i believe that once the trees are removed that replacement trees should be able to be planted within one month. it is a single site. they are the master of the site whereas public works is the master of $125 thousand. i do believe that from the moment of removing the tree to planting you could ask the applicant to commit to one month turn around time. it just means again we want to commit to replacement

specious prior to removal, so that is lined up. you order the trees so you physically have them available. you have a contractor ready to plant, which is separate often from the tree removal contractor. you put those things in place and give yourself a few weeks of wiggle room. you might say two months just to be safe, but a commitment that the time between removal and replacement be as short as possible. >> your suggestion off the cuff as to what should be replacement tree, the appellate would like ficus. is ficus still a reasonable tree knowing what you know now that 25 years ago buff didn't know or will there be another direction? can we narrow down-trying to get everybody more comfortable and less freaked out about what the potential might be if we move forward to remove

the trees. >> yes. the ficus specious is not been on our plant list since the late 1990 so it is issue we are aware of and didn't want to perpetuate. there is also mag nolias. there is a wide range of examples maybe suitable. one is a brisban box, vertical not as wide. chinese elms are semideciduous in the winter, doesn't give year round. there are examples and i think that is something that we can work towards and again, i think there is a opportunity to also look at this street trees planted on the sidewalk, especially the missing tree on pierce and looking more closely at that cherry tree whether that tree is truly establishing or not. so, there are a number of replacement

specious and ficus unfortunately on the list. magnolia are not doing good with drought but there are broad leaf evergreen specious thats are suitable. >> one final question, if i are here and the appellate listening to the conversation what is going through my cynical meend, mine not his on the screen, what i'm cynical about is okay, they will move forward tear down the trees and we wont have the process moving quickly. how do we insure the neighborhood feels safe that the trees wont be removed and there is a bareness a long while? what is the process you recommend if we move forward approve the removal of these trees to keep those

tree s in place doing their job which is to shelter the neighborhood from the buildings and before moving forward and doing what (inaudible) >> thank you commissioner. that actually gave me a point that no one mentioned but it is because of the school site it is active school site and the use is the land use is what will do that. my understanding is pierce is closed each day for recreation and parking. green. so, it is a active site with school and liability for both the school and both the city as well so there would be a joint interest in making sure the site remains safe for the client, which is a school, children and parents coming and

going and dropping their kids off. so it is not a site that is going to tolerate any lagging behind in that so that is why i think this would be a pretty buttoned up approach on the school's part and we can certainly support them in that any questions come up in the way and the process, but it is a active school site and think it is out of necessity they will already be self-motivated to make the transition as quickly as possible. >> there are two motivations, we don't want a ficus falling on kids and we want to make sure the process is tight for the reasons you stated? >> absolutely. they want the trees replanted right away. >> can i ask the city attorney a question? it is mentioned now several times about tying in the empty tree

basin with the potential removal of the 5 subject ficus trees. is that something that we can condition? >> just to clarify, the question is whether you could condition the permit on the replacement within a certain period of time after removal? >> no, no, no. it has been mentioned that while we-while the process of potentially replacing the 5 trees which are the subject trees tonight, that we condition that on replacing a 6 empty box which sits on the street side? can we condition that or not? >> the ordinance provides that the project sponsor needs to replace 1 to 1 or pay inlieu fee. there is not an allowance for requiring additional trees. >> okay. >> if they wanted to offer to

do that they could do that. you can recognize that in it decision but it wouldn't be a condition of the decision. >> so even though it seems like a good idea it is suggested by buff, it is mentioned i believe by other parties that is something we cant touch because it is outside of our ability and purview? >> that's right. >> okay, thanks. >> we have a question from vice president lazarus. >> lost my train of thought because i wanted to go back to what you said earlier when you were trying to interpret the president question. we could condition the permit on a certain timeline? >> i believe the bureau of urban forestry said that is what they condition normally on. a period of time it is valid- >> my original question then, i thought you said is the permit good 6 months or you said something about 6 months and not sure where that fits. >> the permit is valid for 6 months. >> okay. there is a

maximum 6 months window but we could potentially shorten that? >> the permit-when we issue the permit the permit can be acted on for 6 months. i think the condition language would be that the amount of time between removal and replacement within that period be as short as possible. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner comments? >> my way of seeing this, i dont think there is a question needing to remove the trees. as unpopular that might be with certain parties. i'm not sure i heard mr. buck quite as adamant about the condition of the trees. my inclination would be to grant the appeal and condition the permit on there being minimum

amont of time whatever that is between the removal and the -sonded like maybe two months was not a unreasonable time. >> commissioner lopez. >> i would support that. i guess i'm not-i don't feel as strongly about the deadline. i think just understanding the case here. i think they are properly motivated to take care of it as soon as possible. but i would support that as well. >> is there any thought from either of you related to the selection of the trees? do we condition that buff will in their wisdom make the proper choice? is the

condition-could there be a condition there be some timely discussion between the appellate or the neighborhood and buff? what is your-what are your thoughts on that, because obviously the neighborhood is very parental over those trees and energyetic about those trees and left in the lurch like sit on the sidelines we'll take it from here, if i were one of the neighborhood people i would feel a little of discomfort but also a realist in that there may be too many chefs and that would postpone the whole problem, which actually as we heard testimony presents a real danger, a security issue and

health issue to children and the neighborhood in general. any thoughts on that? >> i think it is pretty easy to say the replacement specious is the result of consultation between buff and neighborhood and the school. we do that on a fairly standard basis anyway. >> if they don't agree buff has the final decision? it sounds like there might not be agreement. >> the city is responsible for this. >> right. >> any further thoughts with regard to the care and feeding of those trees in the initial 3 year period which is as we know the danger zone when they really need extra nurturing. do we condition- >> that is a private matter probably. >> can we condition that mr. russi or is that a private matter? >> i believe the bureau of urban forestry said that is already a condition of the

permit they issue here. >> okay. great. anybody want to make a motion then? commissioner lazarus, you- >> i will grant the appeal and condition the permit on the bureau working with the permit holder to minimize the amount of time between the removal of the trees and planting of the new ones and the replacement specious be the product of consultation between buff the school and the neighborhood with buff having the final say should they not be able to reach a consensus. >> okay, did you want to specify two months or minimum state the minimum amount of time? >> i think minimum. with everything that goes on in the world these days- >> okay. we have a motion from vice president lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the determination on the condition it be revised require that the

replacement trees be installed minimum amount of time under the code and further that buff will work with the determination holder and the neighbors on the replacement specious but buff has the final decision. what is the basis of the motion? >> (inaudible) >> okay, on the basis the trees need to be removed for safety issue jz the timeline will brin bring the parties together. on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> motion carries 3-0. the appeal is granted with those conditions. so, we are going to back to item number 4. i did send an e-mail to the appellate and did not get

response so recommend we proceed with the case since we have dph. >> that is fine. >> we are not getting a presentation and did not get a brief so we'll now hear from the department of public health. mr. henry liften and deputy city attorney is representing them tonight. welcome. >> good evening commissioners. henry liften on behalf of respondent department of public health. with me this evening are inspector jennifer (inaudible) and inspector (inaudible) i do want to mention before i cover a few points from my brief that inspector (inaudible) reached out to the appellate and if the board is interested i would allow her the opportunity to give them a update on the discussion that occurred. >> sure, please go ahead. >> thank you. >> thank you

commissioners good evening. jen (inaudible) environmental health. i did call mr. alle one of the owners of koheba gift inc. and did answer and stated he is not planning to attend the hearing and had somebody else that is attending but seemed frustrated that they were not on, but told me he would call them and make sure they got on. i provided my phone number if there were issues. i did not hear back and did not see them come on the zoom call and so i called back but he did not pick up that time and left him a message. if they needed any

assistance. >> okay. thank you for that update. mr. lipten do you want to continue with your prezen sentation? >> i'll just cover a few beef points for the board. i mainly the brief that we submitted covers the key facts, but just to reiterate, this is a flavored tobacco product case where the department observed violations of the health code on 5 separate occasions. because this ord inance was newly enacted in 2018 and also due to the pandemic the department gave several opportunities for the appellate koheba gifts to correct the deficiencies. despite these opportunities the appellate continued to sell and display flavored tobacco. also want to emphasize on two separate occasions employees of

the appellate impeded inspector prado's investigation. on one occasion they asked him to step out of the store and on another occasion they stuffed a plastic bag into a white container and took the container outside the store impeding his investigation. appellate notice of appeal offers no factual basis to overturn the hearing officer's decision. because under section 19h.4-2, subsection a, any conduct is sufficient to establish a violation of health code so any single one of those violations observed by inspector prado would consitute a first time violation under the department's rules and regulations warranting 10 day suspension which is what the hearing officer fond

in this case so we respectfully request the board of appeal uphold the hearing officer's order for 10 day suspension and happy to answer any questions that the board might have. >> okay. thank you. we don't have questions at this time so move to public comment. anyone here for public comment on the item? please raise your hand. i dont see any further public comment, so mr. lipten did you want to add anything? you do have rebuttal time but there isn't much to rebut. >> no. thank you very much. >> no. okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners- >> you want to cut to the chase? >> i think that there is clear evidence that the department did their job. the obstruction

was also a problematic issue and the one thing i observed in the brief that want braut up is there was a allegation i believe one of the employees was selling the product on their own-on the side, and that i believe i like to have city attorney on that. an employee if they are misbehaving themselves and selling a product regardless whether they brought it in themselves or the owner product that is still falls on the shoulders on the owner for not manageic the business and they have to take responsibility for that, correct? >> yes, i agree. if the employee is acting in the scope of employment and the ord inance provides the business is liable for the employee conduct. >> all that being

said, motion to deny the appeal and as the action was- >> (inaudible) basis it was properly issued? >> right. >> so, on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> motion carries 3-0 and appeal is denied. thank you. we will move to item 6. appeal 22-041. donald vertz versus department of building inspection. 1555 oak street. appealing the issuance on may 12, 2022, to stockton sf llc, of an alteration permit (construct three accessory dwelling units per ordinance no. 162-16; remove existing hss and replace with new foundations and moment frames #1-4 and add footing for new load bearing wall and add footing at

lobby/garage). permit no. 2020/02/26/5525. we will hear from the appellate first. mr. vertz, welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. this is brad hern with housing rights committee of san francisco speaking on behalf of the appellate. so, tonight we are urging the commission the board of appeals to grant this appeal and on the basis that while there have been egregious violations of tenant rights i want to focus on the error in discretion by department of buildsing inspection,

planning department and planning commission. not out of malicious intent but lies by there landlord and false fiication of information since the submission of the adu application. i want to start with dbi. on information sheet g23 includesed in the application the landlord falsifyed two pieces of information. one related to affidavit on housing service and ongoing seismic at the property. the landlord cited a permit on information sheet g23 that was 5 years old. the permit was granted to the prior owner for seismic work is and that worked completed and signed off by dbi years ago. thecurrent owner needed to establish a false fiication of seismic work to

exploit building code 34b and the admin code to allow them to unlawfully sever housing service. namely, the garage belonging to the appellate. now, dbi had they properly investigated the history of that permit perhaps could have established there was not a investigation that we know of, and i want to move to the planning department. during the course of the review of the application, the zoning administrator had to issue a action memo on a density waver. because the landlord sought to establish the lie on seismic work and that want questioned up to this point, the

zoning administrator repeated that lie in the action memo and said that seismic work was ongoing, which again allowed for the landlord to exploit the building code and admin code. then, the planning commission at this point the appellate had no choice but to file a discretionary review. at this point, demolition had already occurred for the adu project and to dbi credit, they had cited the landlord with a notice of violation for work beyond the scope of a permit. the landlord had used a permit for water heater work to demolish the garage ined a advance of the adu. dbi cited the landlord of notice of violation for the

water heater work but the water heater was never touched and is there today. that notice of violation existed during the planning commission hearing for the dr. the tenant the appellates had brought forth that information by e-mail to the planning department staff who were assigned to the dr and the planning commissioners during the dr hearing specifically asked about notice of violation. they were unfortunately told inaccurate information, again, not to the explicit fault of the planning department staff but there was no investigation into the history of the permits. the planning department staff and dr hearing said there were no active (inaudible) it is not true. there were active nov but on a permit that

was for on writing water heaters but what the landlord had done with that permit was demolish a garage in advance of adu work. the landlord in response to the citation by dbi for work beyond the scope of the permit and to restore the garage actually went beyond the scope of the citation order by dbi floating dbi and installed perimeter foundation work and rebar that was needed for the adu. then planning commission was sincerely concerned about the severage, unlawful severage of housing service which has been unlawful in san francisco since 2006 and wanted to figure out a option to restore

housing services. the best option is to grant this appeal and reset the permitting process. by doing so, it would also allow for the board's ordinance approved in december 2021 that strengthens the existing law around housing services. this project was in the midst of review when that ordinance took effect december 2021, but there was no declaration to the appellate regarding housing services and there was-again, left the planning department and planning commission with the unreasonable expectation (inaudible) something governed by the rent ordinance. >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. at the end of the day, the landlord has mislead city agencies in particular dbi, the planning

commission, planning department resulting in false information on the information sheet. the action memo and in the dr hearing and we are asking that this appeal be granted and that this permitting process if the landlord chooses to do so be reset undercurrent regulations including the housing ordinance service that wnt into effect. >> time, thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, i believe mr. william perry is here so please go aheads. you have 7 minutes. i understand you want alec to share a preez entation, is that right? you are on mute too by the way.

>> my name is charles perry the engineer of record for the matter. the matter before the board arise from disspute of the appellate and owner of 1555 oak street. the lease grant two undifined parking space open access garage of 1555 oak street. appellate is the only tenant lease provides parking. prior to construction (inaudible) appellate can park in any of the available spaces. after construction the adu in the ground level appellate will have two private parking spaces. can you please move to page 6 of the presentation? this is the-there you go. this floor plan of what the adu will be. upper left hand corner is a adu lower left corner is a rks u. upper right is adu. the lower left shows the tandem garage and building

lobby. the red block is where we put in mechanical room for new water heaters for both hidronic heating system and new domestic heating for the building. the gray is the new garbage area. the colored zone in the back is the terraced area for providing hor zauntal exposure. the owner agreed-you see the tandem parking you see the private door to the garage for the appellate new parking spaces. the owner is also agreed to request sfmta to designate a red or white zone on the front curb in front of the building at completion of construction with the understanding that this is fully at the discretion of sfmta. this is shown in further detail on page 9 of the presentation. there you go. this is where the owner is more then happy to work with mta to put in a red or white

zone such that appellate can park his car there for loading and unloading. we all understand mta has their own rules and not part of the building approval process. so, thus far appellate rejected this proposal and seeking readdress from the board of appeals. summary of my understanding of his claims and owner rebuttal are shown on pages 2, 3, 4, 5. i will leave these pages for reading pleasure. will you do a quick scroll through pages 2, 3, 4 and 5? this is where i lay out the appellate basic claim. next page. next page. last page. thank you. the essence of the appeal is 3 fold. he claims the owner does not center have the right to build 3adu because the (inaudible) performed by the prior owner and it fsh

performed. it is in there you can see it. my understandic ing of san francisco adu ordinance it isn't restricted in a manner. once the buildsing has a seismic ret row fit any owner may construct as many adu as the ordinance allows. i (inaudible) one owner design a seismic ret row fit after the permit received and prior to the start of construction the owner sold the building. the subsequent owner constructed the seismic ret row fit and designed and build adu using in-house staff. these two adu eliminated 6 parking spaces. the second of three fold is the appellate claim the owner does not have the right to alter the parking to change the nature of a tenant parking space. my understanding is that the owner isn't restricted how parking spaces are located or designated. i redesigned parking as part of constructing

adu at 1251, 8 avenue (inaudible) and 969 (inaudible) parking gets restructured. i summarized the codes on page 10 of the presentation. will you please show page 10? this is a list of the codes saying the restrictions and requirements for parking in san francisco. the thirds thrust of the appellate complaint is that or appeal is that the owner must design parking space to the appellate specification or comp sate the appellate accordingly. this might or might be true it isn't subject to the building or planning code as the purview of the bord of appeals. this is a matter for the rent stabilization board. appellateprinted to the san francisco planning commission in des correctionary veview a. print were the san francisco city attorney, the san francisco building director, the san francisco building assistant director, there dbi district supervisor in

charge of the building, memberoffs s of planning staff that works with the appellate and for members of the planning commission. none supported the complaint. the planning commission voted 4-0 against the appellate the planning commission directed the appellate to rent stabilization board. the appellate chosen to plead a identify complaint to board of appeals. made numerous claims regarding the meengs and method of construction with regards to the remodel of unit 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 plus mechanical room and (inaudible) then on pages 11, 12 and 13 i show the current condition or as of may 31 so will you go there? these are screen shots. you can look at them. it is well organized well maintain clean construction site. we have gone through all the

hazmat abatement and control. this shows what the units look like being remodeled. all modern, all new appliance, new space a(inaudible) in line with the historic part of the building. next page. this shows the cleanliness. the photographs were taken may 31 and shows how the halls are cleaned. there are numerous complaints about how dirty the site is. the building is inspected by the health department, the planning department, planning building department on numerous occasions. police have been called out there. i'm sorry we dealt with every complaint as arisen. i respectfully request the members of the board reject the claim and vote in favor of dbi and pda. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> i have a question.

>> okay. president swig. >> not directed to the project sponsor nor the appellate, but i need help from the sit city attorney yet again. can you guide us on a little traffic here? when it comes to the issue of tenant services and our view of how any permit is-the direction of any permit, where do we separate the discussion between a tenant service is as required by a lease and the impact of a permit on a potential tenant service? >> brad russi deputy city attorney. the

question of housing services is one that is within the jurisdiction of the rent board generally. not saying it isn't something you can consider in connection with theo valuation whether the permit is is a good permit or bad permit. you can consider the effect the permit has on the tenants, so whether the landlord is severing housing services is a question for the rent board. >> there is one case that was here before commissioner lopez appeared and was here during our tenure commissioner lazarus and my tenure i believe on presidio on sutter street and i can't remember how it all turned out, but i remember that there was a discussion that-i will be arbitrary, that a laundry room was done away with and that was a tenant service

and that was-that had implication for our discussion on a permit because it was cut and dry. if there was a laundry room there before there has to be a laundry there after. where is that-give us guidance as we hear from planning and then dbi so we can get a-we can clarify where services should impact our view and where services are really the rent board's discussion. >> right. i think the guidance i can provide you here is i dont know if we have enough facts. it isn't entirely clear what the permit is doing and whether the tenant was provided alternate parking during the construction. i dont know whether that is true or not and what the size of the garage he had previously and the

size he will have after the project is done. those are things i would probably want more information about that maybe help you evaluate whether the permit is good or not. i also would question the planning department and how they look at these issues when they evaluate a permit. >> that is perfect. that is exactly the direction i was looking for and hopefully mr. teeg is about to speak to address that suggestion in his presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening. corey teeg zoning administrator representing the planning department. the permit you have before you tonight is for the property and building at 1555 oak street and currently contains 12 dwelling units and ground floor garage. the lot is zoned rm4 which permits one dwelling unit for 600

square feet of lot area so the maximum density for the site is 10 dwelling units. they are built out with 2 more units then otherwise permitted. various permits have been filed by the current owner to renovate the building the subject permit tonight is to convert the ground floor to three units. 2 face the rear and 1 face the street. a garage stall would remain in configuration that allow two tandem parking spaces. under the city local adu program which this permit is taking advantage of, a lot is zoned for residential use and contain s more then units with unlimited number of adu subject to all planning code requirements. the issue raised regarding seismic ret row fitting isn't relevant to the planning code as only replated to buildings that

contain 4 or fewer units. the permit was reviewed byen plaing department and zoning administrator wavers were granted for density open space and exposure which are all very typical for adu permits and the permit was determined to meet all the requirements of the planning code. before the planning department approved the permit request for discretionary review for the subject permit was filed by the appellate tonight in january of 2021 and planning commission heard the case in march of 2021. some commissioners did empathize with the appellate situation, and did have concerns about some of the statements made about loss of tenant services and potential buy outs, the commission ultimately found there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and votedue unanimously to not take discretionary review. the permit holder stated

various dbi official s and staff were in attendance of the hearing. the hearing was conducted remotely and cannot verify the staff were in attendance but that isn't typical to such hearings so can't speak to that specifically. i want to point out a discrepancy from the hearing the appellate raised tonight. public comment was provided during the dr hearing stating the property owner had conducted a certain amont of work on the property without securing appropriate permits. commissioner tanner specifically asked planning department staff if there were complaints or enforcement cases or violations for the property and they responded there were not. while it was true there were no complaints filed the planning department no open enforcement cases or notice of violation there were previous open enforcement cases on file with department of building inspection however the information wasn't provided to the planning commission during that hearing and it is

not clear if commissioner tanner was asking for planning and dbi or if the planner understood the question to be only asking for planning enforcement, but regardless the information the planning commission received is there is no enforcement action on the property even though there was through dbi and i'll let my colleague provide more information about the enforcement cases for this property t. is important to note that the ordinance limited the planning department ability to remove adu defined boo itheerant ordinance adopted and took effect 8 months after the permit was approved by planning so there may be appeals you heard this year for permits where this requirement applies and there were limitations on the department ability to approve permits if housing services were being removed, but this permit in

question tonight pre-idated the controls. the permit was issued may 12 this year and it is the position of the planning department the permit was not issued in error in regards to the planning code and the issue before the board tonight are related to discretionary review authority over the specific situation in context of the permit. while the department and commission are both sympathetic to the appellate issue the department respectfully request the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit approval and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig. >> so, dove-tailing on the city attorney's comments and rather then using the-if i could make the parking issue analogous to that example that i

previously provided, if we were talking about a laundry area and let's say a laundry area had arbitrarily a hundred square feet previously and where people could do laundry and then the laundry was reduced to 80 square feet where people could do their laundry and folks said well we had hundred square feet, but with 80 square feet you can still do your laundry, does size matter when you are looking at from a planning standpoint whether was abuse or not? in this case, this seems to be the issue and i'm sure i will hear about this in rebuttal that the previous size of a parking spot was larger that the location of the

parking spot was different and therefore the relocation and the adjustment in size is the breach seemingly and substance of this appeal. does size matter, does location matter or is it strictly an adequate substitute of a location to provide the services? >> thank you for the question. i will do my best to answer that. i think the crux of your question and the answer is going to be out of the rent ordinance which that would require rent board staff. the reason i say that is a because what we are talking are housing services defined in the rent ordinance and the rent ordinance has criteria how (inaudible) can be removed and how 10 rnts are comp sated and how that all works.

when the adu program first adopted for a number of years very specifically it was targeting some of the areas, laundry rooms, garages, other spaces in the ground floor buildings to convert to adu and that was happening and landlords may have compensateed for the housing services (inaudible) it was in response to tenants concerns that if the compensation wasn't adequate to address the loss of the services sometimes. for example if you had a parking space associated with your unit and you got compensateed knocking $50 a month off the lease that want sufficient to address the loss of the parking space if you were someone who really needed the parking space and you can use a that analysis for any housing

service. that is one reason why the legislation was passed was to acknowledge that yes under the rent ordinance landlords have the right to remove certain housing services as long as there is the appropriate compensation and process, but if they are doing it for the purpose of a adding adu there is much stronger limitations on that. with all that, really the root of what your question is how we define a housing service and what is considered the removal. to your analogy going from hundred square feet to 80 square feet removal or is it something under the rent ordinance that would trigger compensation in such a manner that would then limit how a adu could be added. i dont have the expertise and rent ordinance to answer that specifically and i don't know to what extent that

issue was adjudicated for the rent ordinance for this specific property even though it wasn't issue relevant to the planning code at the time. i hope that helps to answer your question the best i can. >> i think it does, because i think what you are saying and please clarify this, from your point of view your jurisdiction which is the planning code, everything that was done in this building was up to code and compliant. whether that compliance had anything to do with the tenant rights, that is kind of not your job. is that what i'm reading into your statement and really therefore from this body who comments and adjudicates related to

pure planning regulation and standsards that is also not necessarily our purview either. would that be a fair statement? >> it is. i would elaborate a bit just to say that the planning code planning department does not regulate landlord tenant relation. that is what the rent board does, however actions that occur under the purview of the rent ordinance do have impacts on the planning code. the planning code reference the rent ordinance and actions and does impact what we can and can't do for certain permits. in this case it was a situation where at the time this permit was going forward that specific activity did not have a planning code implication for this permit. it may today if it was the same permit was here today because we did have that legislation that took effect approximately 8 months later it might be a different story but at that time with that

specific permit any issues related to the loss of housing services would not have effected the planning department review oof the permit from a code perspective, but as council mentioned, this wnt to the discretionary review hearing and the planning commission and the board tonight has discretion to consider other factors that they may consider to be exceptional and extraordinary beyond just the planning code requirements themselves. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening president swig, vice president lazarus and commissioner lopez. matthew green representing department of building inspection tonight. building permit application 2020-00265525 to add 3

dwelling units and update building structural elements routed to dbi april 12, 2021. the architectural and structural drawings reviewed by separate plan checkers. architectural review completed february 22, 2022 structal review completed march 15, 2022. after review by the other required city agencies such as fire department dpw and puc the permit issued may 12, 2022. there is extensive permit history at the project the up grade completed march 2016 and cfc issued at the imto. there are 12 active permits for the address including renovation of 8 of the existing dwelling units. this work is ongoing and received and passed inspection to the state. there are 28 inspections in the last 2 years. there are also several complaints. dbi issued violation of beyond the scope

of permit. required buildsing permits have been obtained. this work included the work at the garage previously mentioned, there was work at the rear yard and unit 11 started before the building permit was issued. also three filed permits for the structure units for 3, 6 and 7. the applications are going through the normal review process. to get back to the adu permit before you tonight, the building code is silent on the minimum size of a parking spot in a private garage which the appellate brief mentions is a concern. i'm sympathetic the buildsing code does not offer a solution in the matter. the appellate brief also stated the current active building permits at 25 additional bedrooms to the building. my readic of the permit put the number of bedrooms at 11 over 8 separate dwelling units. the adu permit would add another 7

bedrooms. dbi bleevls the permit was reviewed approved and issued properly and believe it should be upheld but we will support any decision the board may make tonight. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> yes. commissioner lazarus always advice stay focused on the permit at hand, so i need your help. you wnt a little too fast for me. you mentioned there were 12 overall permits i believe. 8 had to do directly with apartments. >> correct. >> that leaves 4. i lost you on the 4. can you go, 1, 2, 3, 4? >> sure, i can tell you exactly what they are for. >> okay. >> there was a building permit to clear the notice of violation issued in

september 2020, that was the-they need to submit a test report for demolishing the ceiling in the garage and they submitted that clearance report showing no trace asbestos remaining. >> that is number one. >> that is number one. there is another building for work at the rear yard. says ground sand along the property line to be excavated. demolish remaining wall to enlarge patio. >> that has nothing to do with the adu. >> that is had rear yard. >> there is another one. replacement water heater with new existing 12 apartments replace existing baseboard heater in units 3, 4, (inaudible) replace

piping with new (inaudible) for apartments 1, 2, 11 and 12 for new baseboard heater during future remodel. >> that is seamingly more attached to the 8 apartments up stairs then the adu. i smell contention coming in rebuttal because we heard the in the initial presentation that the demolition to do the replacement of the hot water heater never touched the hot water heater but did a massive job in demoing the garage for the adu. >> when they demoed in the garage they had a plumbing permit to replace the boilding. they didn't have a building permit. just a trade permit. it didn't allow

demolition. >> number 3 you talked about that was more upstairs stuff? okay. now we have number 4. >> number 4. where is number 4? >> is that the adu permit? >> no that isn't issued yet. >> okay. >> i may have spoke. there is another permit completed that is at the garage install 5/8 wall board to provide garage ceiling exterior wall. that was issued or completed january 2021. >> how does that apply to the adu or not at all? not at all. >> that was the 4. i misspoke saying it was a active permit. the permit is completed. >> great. the demolition piece which is-there was proactive demolition that seamingly went

beyond the scope of a permit that want issued that resulted in notice of violation, how does that-where is the juxtaposition between that and a potential adu permit? >> well, the work isn't the same area, it is there garage level, so--you could argue they were preparing for the adu permit. without a doubt they jumped the gun. (inaudible) >> and when they got the notice of violation as it is not unusual when somebody jumps the gun and we find out about jump the gun maybe once a week, right? >> more then that. >> maybe twice a week sometimes. and it is a serious issue. i don't want to make light of it, you dont jump the gun folks, get a permit. how does this effect what we are discussing tonight which is the adu permit or is it a

separate issue? >> i believe it is separate issue. >> okay. so, in this narrow scope, which is the adu permit, give me the good and bad news about this. is there any-is there-you're supporting the issuance of the permit. is there any gray area what so ever? >> i believe the permit approved and issued properly. in previous cases you approved alterations and they got a special condition permit. always a gray area. i don't think the permit holder is put forth any proposed changes to adopt tonight but i recommend- >> so, what we are considering tonight is what you saw originally? >> correct. >> and what you

approved as seeing originally and there is no surprises. as often we see another set of plans appeared so what was presented originally is what we are discussing tonight? >> that is correct. >> and the--one more question, which is the issue of tenant services. what is dbi-where does tenant services and a dbi view of a permit run into each other, or is it just we pay attention to the plans and if the plans are in compliance we will approve the permit and tenant services that is somebody else's to discuss? where do you run into that and how do you mitigate that situation? >> at the plan check

level i dont believe tenant service come into play. we look at building code. dbi also has a housing inspection service that respond to tenant complaints about maintenance issues, but that is not what we are talking about tonight. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> anybody else? >> commissioner lopez has a question. >> on the statement that was made during the appellate's presentation about the delaying -laying of the foundation and rebar, related to the adu which i understand the statement is this was done essentially going against the existing nov that was in place at the time, can you comment on that in any facts you have about that? >> a building inspector was out there today looking at it. if we are talking about

the same (inaudible) i did meet with the appellate last week and he showed the same pictures. there are details of the plans for what is called a slab on slab. (inaudible) sticking out. the details are not clear that a slab should go on that exit path. i believe the district building inspector will issue a correction notice on that matter. normally a walkway would not require a building permit but this is part of a exit path so it does require a building permit. >> and then there's this issue about or question about whether these nov should have been presented to the planning commission during this hearing. this is also for my own edification, but role does dbi play in one of these

vr hearings? do you have a representative to present that information or how does that- >> we do not. dbi does not normally attended dr hearings. it was mentioned director and assistant director is there. they do not recall that and do not normally attend the dr hearings in any way. >> got it. do you-does dbi ever receive kind of you know, points of information or you know, requests that may be relevant to dr hearing from specific-related to specific hearing items or pretty separate? >> we get request for information all the time and we present it (inaudible) requesting procedures whether for a dr hearing or something else. we will give the information. >> but it wasn't-that want done in this case?

>> i don't believe so. >> got it. that's it for me. >> one more. thanks for giving me the question. what we have hear here is there-this is about a garage space and whether that's the is a service issue, but it is also has something to do with approval of dbi and planning department. going back to my analogy and works for the parking spot but i will take it. the laundry room that was a hundred square feet that becomes 80 square feet, you can still do laundry may be smaller but still provide the service. when there is a relocation of a parking spot and the parking spot is still legally compliant, but it is not what

it was before, where does that fit and where does that come up? this seems to be the root of what we are discussing. how do you deal with that? >> i would say for parking spaces this is frustrating throughout the years. like i said, a parking space isn't defined in the building code. the size of a parking space isn't defined. my personal opinion, the parking spot seems a little small, but like i said, it does meet the- >> and so if the parking spot is a little small, but it is still legally compliant i work in a building where i curse the parking lot every day because although it is legally

complaint, man those spaces are awful narrow, and i understand when something can be small but yet where i work the planning department approved it and the proper approval were there even though it sucks. technical term. but, what can be done to mitigate a situation where it is still a legal parking spot according to all compliance issues, dbi and planning, yet you say it is a little small? how do you deal with that? or give to the tenant board and let them deal with that because that isn't our jurisdiction? >> before the building code is silent on the size of

the parking spot. there are many different sizes of cars that same parking spot may be very useful to another tenant, so unfortunately though the buildsing code is silent on the issue. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. we are moving to public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? raise your hand. i see the phone ending 6005, please go ahead. you have two minutes. you may need to press star 6. okay. you unmuted yourself. please go ahead. >> wnderful. hi. my name is starla miller a tenant of 155 oak street. one of very few tenants left in the building because it has been completely under construction. there's apartment which is a family with young children and then pardon me, two apartments with senior citizens so

that is all that is left in the building. what i like to say in relation to the adu is my question is about doing another retrofit is that a pass-through and necessary in the city or quite devastating if we had that across the board as okay in san francisco? secondly, i wanted to talk about the logistics of the garbage cans. sinsh we have been living in the buildsing with 12 units and doubles occupancy all the construction and plus adu, they keeping the same 3 garbage cans in a tiny room if you look at the plans which you cant turn the garbage can sideway to get to one to put garbage in it and doubling the ocpaensh in the building. i dont know what garbage collector is able to navigate that or tenant. and then, lastly, in relation to

the construction overall, what we are looking at is a bigger picture. yes they are doing the adu and-sorry, what did you say? >> you have 30 seconds. >> okay. the back yard has been completely demolished. we have young children. they cannot go back there for the last 2 years. it is a sandy demolished awful thing where we they created shade due to large walls being put up. fences and it is a steep incline, which no one can just go on. it isn't navigateable. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from caller, 5886. please go ahead. you may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> hello. >> yes. >> my name is anataseia (inaudible) member of san francisco tenant union

and we believe the department was mislead regarding the alteration permit to construct 3 accessory dwelling units per ordinance number 162-6t. commissioners, you need to look in your packet at the screening form that the owner signed affidavit february 17, 2020. he was aware of the legal requirement pursuant toerant ordinance 372.r that was the reduction severage or removal of garage facilities parking driveway storage spaces from existing tenancy requires a just cause and the issuance of permit does not constitute a just cause. take a look, he checked the box indicating he would be doing mandatory seismic ret row fit which alieu him to do a temporary removal

of housing services. the garage but no he put down the previous owner of number of-that retrofit work completed. ps, the demolition of the entire garage, take a look at the pictures ing your packet. it was unpermitted and the appellate parking area was destroyed. removal and relocation of load bearing walls put in place during the seismic retrofit by the prior owner. there was no requirement or just cause for the applicant to remove the vehicles from the garage to accommodate the construction and we maintain that there needs to be a just cause for removal of- >> thank you. that is time.

>> okay, thank you. we will hear from michael nulte. go ahead. >> michael nulte, executive director of tenant association coalition of san francisco. i want to ask that the please uphold the appellate or the appeal. this seems to me that the owner and the owner's representative has tries to justify all these actions that have been made through the course of the tenancy of the tenant and there seems to be a lot of missteps made during the rehab of the building and/or modification of the buildsing and it turning into the building to be unfriendly towards tenants and i think the property owner needs to understand that he's doing an investment and that the tenants

have to feel comfortable in the property as these things occur. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the call phone 9068. >> prior to speaking i'm the property manager. >> this is we are in public comment, so i believe it is more appropriate to speak during rebuttal. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. so, is there further public comment, please raise your hand. i dont see any further public comment so we'll move to rebuttal. mr. hern you have 3 minutes. >> (inaudible) for the appellate. you know, respectfully there has been it seems a misunderstanding of the appellate argument or main argument by sfbbi and

sf planning as well as the plan sponsor. really our main argument here is that as the representative from the tenants union mentioned this affidavit signed by the owner saying they were not severing or reducing housing services was out just cause is a lie and mislead the city from the very beginning of the project. you know, there is a ordinance introduced by supervisor mendelman and became law in december that strengthen the over site of protections the tenant protections were in place since 2006, the ability to not have your services served have been right since 2006 so the eviction of the appellate vehicle or parking spaces in

2020 which continues to this day the appellate has not had the ability to use this garage facilities for two years, that was illegal before the ordinance was passed, it is still illegal and the project sponsor mislead the city from the very beginning. in order to cover up that misstatement they then lied on the form as well iis aing that they were undergoing mandatory seismic work which would be the only reason that they would be able to sever a service without just cause. they lied on this form as well as forms that were submitted to the city, to the planning department essentially and this is required by the city to submit a picture of the notice they provided tenants notifying them about the adu work and so they again

improperly cited building code 34b which relates to mandatory seismic work as basically the reason they were undergoing this project. so, our main argument is that because from a very beginning the city agencies were mislead and the tenant had no ability to then essentially petition his rights of the tenant against the severage of housing services, we ask simply that the permit process be reset if they do contend that there is just cause to sever these services they should have to go to the rent board under the purview of the new ordinance. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder or agent for perry you have 3 minutes

and don't know if you want to share your time with the property? >> there is acquisition that boarder on slander and tired of hearing it. tenant or appellate be warned. so there is no line no misdirection. the use of the adu is based on the fact that a seismic ret row fit was performed by the prior owner. the mere fact we are modifying the structure has nothing to do with that. the old ret row fill done is ing the way for the adu. there is also claim lying reducing tenants services. only one tenant had access to marking and that is (inaudible) father. and he had two parking spaces before they were (inaudible) he will have two parking spaces afterwards. so, the claim by them this is reduction in tenant services and that (inaudible) would comply with the planning code comply with building code. we are

providing two parking spaces. the fact mr.verts vertz and his daughter do not like them is irrelevant as far as board of appeals. this has to do with rent stabilization board. i yield the balance of time to david alexander the owner representative. >> thank you all. i know i-can you hear me? >> yes, please go ahead. thank you. >> okay, thank you. there is limited time. i apologize i am on vacation with poor cell reception: there is no much to respond to on the call and apologize i wont get to all of it, but most would be something that would be heard by the rent board in regard to the parking spaces. mr. vertz is a wundserful man and he has two vintage luxury cars that were in two different spots in the

garage. the garage when i first saw it was horrible. he is going to have a brand new garage which i believe is sprinklered which allow storage and yes it will be a tandem parking situation opposed to two different spots and he has a thirds vehicle he used to park in front of the second vehicle in front. absolutely there will be some sort of a hearing at some point to discuss compensation, which he has been comp sated since he was vacated. i hope everything works out and the owners once again are empathetic and sympathetic. (inaudible) i can say that trash will be taken care of with more pickups. i dont think we need more cans i think it will be more pickups and the owners have not passed through any of the retrofits yet. i doubt they will pass through 2 ret row fits so hope

there will be no increase in cost for starlet and her family. i'll close in the 4th generation san francisco native. i am looking at this as a improvement to the building and neighborhood with increases in housing which lower rent. (inaudible) >> your time is up. thank you. thank you. we'll hear from the question from president swig. >> thank you to the last speaker. sorry mr. miller was that your name? >> david alexander. >> sorry. so, during the last two years when there has been demolition of the garage and the person to whom the person to whom the services of parking was offered had to relocate his vehicles, can you detail the compensation or allowance that you have provided that

individual and then i will check and then can you justify at the same time whether the law-how the law is fallowed with regard to providing just compensation to that individual? is he still there, mr. alexander? >> mr. alexander. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> i did. yes, i heard everything you said. so, when his parking was temporarily severed he was comp sated based on the rent board calculation for each parking spot. i dont know what it was but believe it was 50 percent which is what is required at the time for each parking spot. 15 percent of

the rent times two and he is compen sated and one point it lapsed because there were delays due to hearings so he called and are said you owe me and said no problem so paid another 6 month advance and we will continue to do that until he gets the two parking spots back. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have another question? >> no. >> thank you, we will now hear from the planning department. >> good evening again. corey (inaudible) i think we are-we have a situation here where there is three ordinances in play and i will (inaudible) don't have anyone from the rent board so challenging for me and mr. green to respond to questions that are

specific to rent board determinations. but, to address issues raised, the issue of whether or not the property was undergoing seismic retrofit as part of the permit was not relevant for this permit and whether or not the permit was removing housing services at this time for this permit was not relevant to the zoning permit being reviewed by the planning department. i understand why those issues are relevant to the (inaudible) i reinforce that it is our position and dbi position the permit is meeting the requirements of the code and the question is really just do you think the situation that have been described here and the context of this

case rises to the level of being exceptional and extraordinary to the extent that you think it is warranted to acquire at least one parking space? you have the discretion to make the call. just as the planning commission had the discretion at the hearing and chose not to use the discretion and approve as proposed and you have that same discretion before you tonight to either modify the permit or to deny the appeal and approve the permit as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. president swig, do you have is a question? >> mr. teeg, it was very clear in the rebuttal that the appellate sees that the project sponsor lied by checking a box saying that this action was related to a mandatory

seismic upgrade. you said just now that it doesn't matter. how should we deal with that checking of a box? is that a lie, is it a fraudulent move or the department issuing a permit, dbi issuing a permit, is this relevant for this permit that checking of the box? >> for the planning department purpose, (inaudible) it was not particularly relevant because of the context of the permit. other permits that box is more relevant if it is building with 4 or fewer dwelling units, so it wasn't relevant to the planning department review. i know the appellate has claimed it is more relevant to a

specific building code section and provision related to parking then anything in the planning code. >> so, is that a better question for dbi? should i repeat the question for dbi? >> it is question for each of us. i can speak only to the planning code portion, i cant speak to dbi portion of it. >> i will ask dbi to respond to the same question, is the checking of the box perceived as a law or fraudulent action and does it have merit or context in the issuance of the permit. >> he will answer your question and we'll start the time. he has 3 minutes for rebuttal. thank you. >> i have to confess i'm not a expert on the screening forms. i can do further research if you continue the case. i apologize, i guess i did misunderstand what the basis of the appeal was. i thought it was the size of the parking space. i apologize

>> but in the context of any like action, when a-if this-forget this building if this another building same issue, same mouse trap, same everything, would the checking of the box be done one way or the other be relevant to your issuance of this permit? >> it is concerning that they are saying it was undergoing mandatory story upgrade and the work had been completed 4 years prior. that should have been probably caught at the initial intake. it wasn't. like i said, i'm not a expert on the forms. i would have to ask the relevant parties what the significance is. i

apologize, it is inadequate answer. don't have a better answer for you. >> you can start the time. >> one of the public comments brought up the issue of garbage collection and the solution to that is increased pickup. if the garbage isn't picked up in a timely manner and if the garbage area isn't maintained it is violation of san francisco housing code issue notice of violation, the normal remedy to that is increased pick up time. no further comments and available for further questions. >> vice president lazarus,iovua question? >> just to follow up on president swig's question, did the checking of that box play any role in the decision regarding the permit? >> i don'ts believe so. i think this is more for buildings 4 units or less. >> right so the same answer as

planning essentially. >> right. >> thank you. >> i do see the zoning administrator hand raised. i dont know if he wanted to follow up on your question? >> if it is pertinent to the question that is okay. >> mr. teeg, did you want to further elaborate on your answer? >> sure. i realize i failed to fully answer president swig's question and then that was kind of transition into his question for mr. green. on the issue of the seismic retrofit even though it was not issue relevant to the permit, the planning code requires the seismic retrofit happen in conjunction with the adu development. that is the point. there is a nexus that while you are doing a seismic retrofit you are putting in a lot of money to make the building safer and the

ability to add more adu that may otherwise be permitted is a incentive for property owners to make their buildsings more seismicly safe. i know the property owner mentioned maybe the perception is that not having to be done in conjunction with the adu permanent and cant speak to intent in not checking the box and don't know if that is hundred percent clear on the forms but i wanted to make that clear under the planning code. >> i'm confused at something. i heard testimony i think that there is construction as part of the permit that relates to the seismic welfare of this building and that was related to the demolition of

the early demolition of the garage, but in anticipation of further seismic care of this building. am i mishearing that? will there be no more seismic care done to this building? >> maybe the question is better directed to dbi. for the purposes of the level of work required to trigger additional permission in the code you have to be do a certain level of seismic retrofitting you can't do something and call it retrofitting. there is minimum requirements. building inspection is experts on what those are so can't speak to the work done and permit on other permits that may have been somewhat seismicly related and somewhat related to the adu

permit. >> i'll rephrase to dbi then, with the clearing of all the little early we recognize that and i think properly slapped the hand, is the clearing and demolition of that area in anticipation of the adu ? has there been or will there be additional seismic enhancement in the construction-the reconstruction that will create the 4adu? >> yes, structural plans clearly show (inaudible) >> so, there is in fact seismic enhancement and up grade to the building as a result of the adu? >> correct. the building just to clarify the building complies with the

mandatory soft story program for 2016. they are changing the ground floor will change some of the structural elements and they are up grading it as part of this permit before you today. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. commissioners, or do you have a question vice president lazarus? >> a question for mr. teeg because he confused me. so, you went back and talked about the nexus between seismic retrofitting and adu but thought you said that is relevant to buildings of 4 units or less? >> that is true. apologies for confusion. that is not what i'm trying to do. i just wanted to make the point of whether or not it is relevant the seismic retrofitting is happening in conjunction with the adu development or not generally since that point has been brought up and there is questions as to

whether or not there was seismic retrofiting happening in conjunction or prior and done and unrelated. that was just to address the general issue but again you are correct, whether or not the adu permit has seismic retrofitting component isn't relevant inder the code because they are already permitted to have no density cap or maximum cap ong the number of adu identify can add. >> thank you. just- >> no further testimony, sir. unless there is a question by one of the commissioners. the speaker time is up. commissioners, please have a seat, sir. sorry we cant take your testimony. commissioners, this matter is submitted. public comment passed. i called out and no one came up,

so--okay. >> [speakic speaking in the background. unable to hear] >> sorry sir, public comment has passedment you can have 2 minutes. you are not mr.verts are you? >> i am. >> you are are the appellate so cannot speak during public comment. >> (inaudible) >> sorry, you should have worked with them. your time is up. you cant speak, sir. okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. sir, sorry, at this point you need to sit. thank you. >> commissioners i was-i'm also not a expert oen theerant ordinance but the argument they are making here is that while the mandatory seismic retrofit issue departments are saying that isn't relevant to review oof the permit but the argument they are making is

relevant of housing service because under the rent ordinance if the landlord is performing mandatory seismic retrofit which was the prior permit that was issued in 2015 what is required to bring the building up to code-there was a deadline all buildings had to do the mandatory work and under the rent ordinance the landlord is able to do temporary severage of housing service in connection with those type of permits so they are saying that because of this permit was not the mandatory seismic retrofit they were not entitled to sever the garage access during the work. i dont know with whether that is true or not. i dont know the notice given but that is the argument and rel vens of the mandatory seismic retrofit. >> that a rent board issue? >> that is a rent board issue. they are able to petition the rent board for

reduction in rent or compensation i think or alternate place to store the cars. i believe what they are asking for here is they want the board to restart the process so the new ordinance would govern the adjudication of this permit and provide the tenant the opportunity to submit petition to the rent board and the planning department couldn't aprusk the permit until the rent board makes a determination as to whether or not the permit constitutes substantial reduction in housing suv services or severage. >> my response in my mind is you were laying that out is what is the cure and the cure has nothing to do with what we do here. the cure falls under the rent board and i think what the-we are now in

discussion. julie are we now in discussion? >> the matter is submitted to you. >> thanks. now we can discuss. what seems to be the issue is the checking of the box and moving forward was improper and if you believe that, and that as a result-had this a second ago. let me figure this out, folks. what seems to be here is that there was a checking of the box that under a future ordinance would have had a another-this would have been dealt with in a different way but it wasn't because this box was checked either

fraudiantly or a lie, whatever you want to say and we have to decide it seems whether the action taken by the planning department was just at the time and also by the planning department and also by dbi and what would hold would be the statutes in place at the time of that first hearing. if that hearing-if the findings of the hearing were triggered or justified by the checking of the box, then we should nullify that hearing and reset. i'm not necessarily comfortable with that unless i hear otherwise from fellow commissioners. i am not set on my beliefs here. just trying to frame it. >> i think it was made

clear by both planning and dbi that the ret rofit issue was not relevant because it is building greater then 4 units so it is a mute point and i'm notd interesting nor think it it appropriate what size garage somebody should have because that takes you down a path you are never going to return from ever. >> as dbi said, there is no standard for the size of a garage. it is ambiguous and maybe in a litter version of rules and regulations i might be clarified a bit. not under this watch it seems. >> i think the prospect most concerning to me is if the screening application lead to a decision tree that flowed a certain direction that

circumvent the rent board but it sounds like we heard from a representative from planning and dbi that is not the case because of the way the building is constituted, right? so, i guess i also have maybe a point of information. do we know if the rent board appeal review of some sort, is that off the table as of today or-? >> what i think the issue is that the process they like to apply to this permit was not in place at the time that the permit was reviewed but it is in place now if it were reviewed now. i am-again, i dont advice the rent board. i believe they can file petition for reduction in rent

but don't think that is what they want. >> i follow the tact and commissioner lazarus implied and that is checking of the box didn't matter anyway. was it a lie? i dont know, but it doesn't matter because it didn't apply ing this case because the size of the building and the size of the building as stated by dbi and planning, so it didn't matter. is this a rent board case? that's-i'm sure they can file a grievance with the rent board but how does this effect the building permit? this building permit seems in the eyes of dbi and the eyes of planning department to be suitable and correctly issued, so that is where i'm-and is there a tenant dispute in the making?

oh, yeah, but that is not our issue and do we get to roll back the clock because a box was checked incorrectly or determined that box may have been checked incorrectly but wouldn't have mattered anyway because it didn't apply to the building so becomes a mute point. will not make the appellate happy. >> i would say that i wouldn't condone them having checked the box. >> no. >> for whatever motivation. i'm also not that this is pertinent but not persuaded that based on what inspector green said that doing the work on the adu triggers additional soft story retrofitting, that is just a side bar at this point so dont think you can fall back on that. it is chicken and egg in that situation, so from my perspective we deny the appeal basis the permit was

properly issued. >> is that your motion? okay. so on vice president lazarus motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> presidents swig. >> aye. >> motion carries 3-0 and appeal denied. do we need a break or continue on? okay. >> give me till 10 minutes of the hour, please. 5 minute break. >> okay, thank you for your patience for those people here for item number 7. we will take a 5 minute break. [recess] >> regular meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we are now moving on to

item number 7. appeal 22-042. galen grant versus zoning administrator. subject property is 65 oak grove street. appealing the issuance on may 6, 2022, to galen grant, of a letter of determination (the zoning administrator determined that the legal use of 65 oak grove street is a trade shop as defined in planning code section 890.124; a trade shop was principally permitted in the m-1 and sli zoning districts and remains so within the sali zoning district today; because there is no abandonment provision in the planning code for a use that is principally permitted, the trade shop use has not been abandoned and remains the legal use; the proposal to establish an office for the district council 16 is considered a general office use, which is not permitted in the sali zoning district per planning code section 846, and therefore cannot be permitted at the subject lot unless the planning code is amended). record no. 2021-012923zad. we'll hear from the appellate first. mr. grant, welcome. you

have 7 minutes and thank you for your patience tonight. >> thank you very much julie. i appreciate it. i am galen grant the president of fcga architecture, representing district council 16. district council 16 is a labor union that represents 4 different (inaudible) it represents painters floor finisher glazers and dry wallers, and our firm does a lot of work with the trades. we built ourselves as architect of the trades and really appreciate being involved in the project. i was the one that filed the initial request for approval for the office use for this building, which is owned by our

client and at that time i was-i actually created in some respect created the (inaudible) we are here to talk about tonight because i misunderstood in detail how this building was going to be used. so, the reason that we are here tonight is to speak to the fact that this building is not inteneded to be a office building. this building is a labor union hall. this is a dispatch building for 4 of the trades. at most there will be 6 people on staff in this building at

any given time. the other occupants will be premises that will be there for teaching-for mean for learning within of the 4 trades. so, on the second level where we have offices we have 5 offices 4 of them for dispatch purposes. each one dispatching 4 of the various trades. on the ground floor, we have a tall volume which will be very suitable and will be used for on occasion for teaching purposes. there will be trucks. there will be fork lifts. there will be pellet jacks. there will be storage for large tool cases.

teachs the apprentices in the various trades how to do their business within the trade. so, as part of the project, what i like to do is give you a quick tour and alec if you could pull up our slides just so everyone understands the context of this building. this is the front the existing structure off oak grove street. there's on the left side on the e ground level you can see gates. that gate we are propozing to redo and proposing to are do the facade and update it but it will remain very much the same. next slide. you can see the windows. that is

fine. you can see the windows along the side that face the freeway on the left side of the structure. next slide. better view of the windows. this is looking at the opposite side from freeway and you can see we are up against the neighborer building. this is the back side, so on the right ground level is another overhead door which allows circulation for vehicles all the way through the structure. next slide. and that's the roof view giving you the perspective of the relationship of the building to the freeway. next slide. so, the drawing on the top shows this is for vocational

training. it is also for parking at various times, and the drawing at the bottom is the second floor which shows classrooms, it identifies the 4 offices that will function as dispatch, and then the meeting rooms which are classrooms for aprints. isthe is a training facility with offices that support that use. so, we are here tonight and jay hewitt is a agent with district council 16. we also have rudey gonzalez with building trades. they would like to have a couple offices on the second level and so both of these gentleman can speak more directly to how their

business functions and i like to turn it over to them at this point. james do you want to take it from here and then hand it over to rudy? >> probably if that is fine with you. what i was going to say is we have a building down on-hold on a second. give the address. down on 1939 market street doing this that the city is taking that building over so we want to keep a building in san francisco that enables to do the dispatching of local construction for the union glazers floor layer panter and dry wall so the main purpose of dealing with grievances and employee issue so when i read the denial of the permit because we are having a office space apparently there was a misunderstanding. it is our office, but again the purpose

is for training for dispatch and putting local people to work and the 4 crafts we function. on the bottom page they were talking about one of the build-outs there was for the building trades. i believe that is why rudy is involved and interested having a office there to handle the building trades is a union of all unions, so the carpenter when we get together and go through rudy so believe that is why he is here so this is about getting people to work (inaudible) >> thank you. there is more time in rebuttal for mr. gonzalez. we are moving ong to-we have a question from president swig. >> thank you. i think you heard me speak in the opening session and then i

would have said the same in the hearing related to the tobacco license issue, and this has to do with the a question related to why did you not submit a brief for this item as it places us at a significant disadvantage as well as places yourself at significant disadvantage because we are hear for the first time and haven't been able to do due diligence and research and proper study? why was there no brief submitted? >> mr. grant did you want to answer that? >> yes, i would. we submitted a letter on may 12 with our request for hearing,

and we addressed the issues we wanted to be discussed this evening. we felt we wrote it very clearly and we assumed that would be distributed to board members. >> it was, but it doesn't qualify as a former brief. i like to ask-just i have to service that for you because that is how we-our policy and procedure and again it gives the opportunity to give the fairest of hearings, not that you wont get a fair hearing but there is some limited ability for us to potentially become fully educated on the subjectt matter. i like to ask a question. this sounds like a school like a trade school. i

understand that there's a white collar piece to it and administrative piece related to union business but the rest sounds like a trade school and i will ask planning whether a trade school like environment really applies to the zoning of this? is it a trade school? >> sorry is that question for planning? >> is this a trade school? >> may i answer that mr. chair or president on behalf of the group? >> sure. >> san francisco building construction trade council. sadly many of the local unions no longer house training facilities along the administrative work of the local unions but we have plumber and electricians moving into a new buildsing and district council 16

who renewed their commitment, so they do plan to have both aprenths and vocational training alongside preaprints training. district council 16 loaned their skilled trained instructors to citybled academy so we have practical applications both in the soft skills for people who have barriers to entry whether because they were just as involved or come from other disenfranchised parts thof community so they can teach practical soft skills called job readiness training programs and those are more clasroom scenario and there is practical hands on the first floor is more appropriate for, so the union includes a trade school component and i think that to follow up on mr. grants comments respectfully mr. president, i think we were thinking this was a matter of clarification and less technical argument

under the sali zoning it falls in there both in the educational and social service realms i think we probably could have done a better job articulating on the front end and appreciate the zoning administrator response frankly just based on how we applied . it want we were blowing off the brief process just a technical clarification. >> i think what we have to clarify here is the under the planning code service repair and wholesale sales and that is quhie i asked the question is this a trade school? >> exclusively sir. >> okay. and does this-how does this usage apply to service repair and/or wholesale sales? >> it applies more

specifically to the 890.5 where it talks about assembly social services, vocational educational training and job training. >> none of which i'm against mind you but unfortunately what we are charged with here is maintaining the use of buildings according to the code and even the usage you are advocating is a fine use and certainly support ive of that use and supportive of the services which unions provide, this is what we have to wrestal with. that is why i ask, is it a school and so i guess we'll let the testimony continue with the planning commission or sorry, planning department on this one. thank you. >> is it okay to respond further? i may be

using union jargon of aprintsship and proivational training. they are qualified and certified as post secondary educational institutions and regulatesed through aprintsship standard through the state dir so layman term apprenticeship although paid is considered post secondary education which is further clarified by the state through the pandemic in so far as we were low aed to be considered essential and maintain our school operations. you dont typically refer as schools per se. >> what i continue to hear is it will be a school. if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck and must be a duck. that's what i am wrestling with and why i asked the question but we'll talk about later after we hear from planning. >> thank you we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good

evening again. corey teeg zoning administrator for planning department. i may ask the president for guidance here because the original request letter was brief and focus said on the executive offices of the union and that is really what i analyzed and the brief for the letter submitted with the appeal tries to expand on that a bit and talk about being more then just that and into the assembly and (inaudible) what i heard tonight is it seems to be more a expansion into that very much more specific job services and potentially school aspects, soy i could go through the determination of the letter but it sound like there isn't disagreement in that and it was actually that the appellate may

be seeking a not alternative determination to the question asked but maybe a opportunity to ask a different question to get a different determination and ifthalities that's the case i think we would need to have it discussion perhaps with city attorney on the most appropriate route there whether or not the most appropriate route is deny the appeal and allow them to file new request that is much more detailed and specific to the use they want to outline or i don't know if they would be-not aware of a process through the appeal process here to actually allow the request itself to be altered or supplemented in any way but i refer to city attorney on that. if that's-that seems to be the crux of the issue so for the sake of time i wont go through the technical aspects of the determination. i'm happy to answer any questions about that for any other potential outcome

but it seems like what we need to do is really move towards the consideration of a new question essentially. i'll stop there and available for questions and happy to work through this process and see if we can land on a alternative answer. >> question. the route of this we had- >> please speak into the microphone. >> thank you. we had i think there was a building on harrison or maybe it was folsom where a software company wanted to move into what was a building that was used for building stuff, right? building and building selling and distributing stuff, which that seems to be the driving factor in the zoning

here. small business, building and selling their stuff, and again, i am not opposed to the spirit of the use, but this isn't about-give me clarification on whether my interpretation of what the zoning issues here are accurate. is this space meant for a small manufacturing concern building and distributing and selling their stuff? not necessarily in that order. >> are you asking if this property is zoned in a manner to permit- >> no, is the zoning in this area and for this building specifically for the

operation of a business that is going to be manufacturing or fixing or--and selling stuff or does this use which is being asked, again, here we have no brief and therefore didn't get a proper explanation which is our weakness here. does this use as was presented tonight fit into the zoning intention of this area? that's what we are here for i think. >> sure. i think you are asking maybe broader questions and we have to get down to technical questions but the (inaudible) is sali service arts and light industrial so very much intended to be the somi version of the pdr district production distribution and repair. similarly it is more

prohibitive like general office and housing. other type of uses that are too competitive would drive up land values so these (inaudible) arts and light industrial uses wouldn't be competitive. that is there intent of this but every district including the different pdr districts and sali permit different uses differently. one thing we are not able to achieve tonight is really defining determining what land use definition they are updated proposal would land in because i think that requires more information from them and work on my end to see what the most appropriate land use definition is because as we heard, there is aspect s of is executive office of the union and some aspects that are job training and some ais embly and

maybe something else so that question itself of what land use definition would this be with this combination of activities may be a challenging determination and that is the process to determine what is this use and then once we define the use determination of whether or not the use is permitted in the district. i would also like to add this want in my response at the time and dont think introduced yet, but i dont mean to add more confusion to this, but luckily the information i'm about to provide is all in the effort to reduce confusion in the planning code. so, for many years we had three different parts to planning code that defined land use differently and provide different land use regulation. article 2, 7, and 8. in 2015 we had (inaudible) reorganization that provided a lot of clarity. 2017

we had the (inaudible) reorganization that aligned article 7 with article 2 so they share the same set of land use definitions and now we have legislation introduced, haven't been heard before planning commission but same for article 8 which is where the sali district lives so some point in the next several points the land use definition we are talking about in article 8 are no longer going to exist. they will get assumed in the land use definition section 1 and 2 and apologize for the code sections, but all of this is to say i think this is a technical determination that requires more work and-not tonight it isn't the forum for that. to me the question is, is #24 forum this appeal

process or separate letter. hope that helpsed. >> it is very helpful and raises the question to make it easier for the appellate and make it easier for the determination the planning department is it just easier to deny the appeal tonight-this is a constructive action for both parties, deny the appeal tonight and then let a refiling occur so that the proper information is presented. you can make your determination based on the real facts or expanded facts and then either we are going to hear back here again because they don't like the determination or you would have solved the problem. what is the best course of

action as you would recommend related to this letter of determination tonight? >> may i ask a question? >> go ahead. >> so, it sounds like we will go for a second bite at the apple which may be good, but are there limits on how many request a entity can make on the same topic so to speak? so, it seems the other thing we could do is define-is it abuse of discretion or- >> he made his decision based on the facts presented, so another option is building permit where we could suspened for the purpose of cancellation given the zoning administrator wasn't given all the pertinent facts. >> i think we are going towards allowing further discussion so looking for the best means to allow that to happen without handy capping it,

right? >> deputy city attorney brad russi. it sound like the zoning admint strairt wasn't presented with the entire property what they want to use the property for but answered the question based oen whautis given so the board could deny the appeal the zoning (inaudible) as articulated in the letter. you could also instead continue and let them withdraw the appeal if they like. might want to hear from the appellate themselves as to what they prefer but it sounds like-i don't see a reason why they couldn't bring another letter of determination request with the proposed use of the property. >> is i want to make sure that wasn't precluded when you have a permit denied you cant ask for another permit for a year. >> cant ask for the same permit within a year but here- >> different set of- >> different set of facts. >> if we wnt in that

direction deny the appeal and the letter of determination properly issued and they wanted to file another letter of determination with a different spin, is there a prescribed buffer zone or a time during which they cannot ask for another letter of determination or can they tomorrow start it all over again with request for another letter of determination for the separate set of facts? >> i'm not aware of limitation by that and believe the zoning administrator believed they could make another request like this but ask to conform that. >> my question is time related. i understand they can make a request that isn't the issue but will this postpone the effort a year or 6 months or does can it happen immediately which wouldn't create a burden for the appellate? >> i'm not aware of that. >> mr. teeg have any

opinion on that? >> happy to share my thoughts. the planning code does not provide any restrictions on the ability or a timeline around filing additional request even if tfs the idantical request. that isn't the case here in the sense that they are going to be filing what is fundamentally a different request, so especially considering that but it wasn't there is no analogous cooling off period after determination similar to a building permit denial. >> deal with the hearing and get to (inaudible) >> i think we should resolve it tonight so they can move on. >> don't we have to hear public comment? >> yes, we do. >> and then they get to come back for rebuttal and we can- >> yes. we can hear what they have to say. we are moving to public comment. is there anyone here for public

comment want? please raise your hand. dont see public comment, so we'll move to rebuttal. mr. grant did you want to address the board? you have three minutes. maybe-- >> i think i will share my time with rudy and james if they like to comment as well. my pref erence would be i certainly-this is certainly up to you, but it would seem that the information that we presented in our letter clearly identifies supplemented by the conversation and discussion at the-how the building is going to be used and it would be ideal and time saving and very efficient for all of us if we could make decision that yes, this is light industrial use, it fits into the

zoning appropriately. it is not a office building. that was my error. i own that, but we are trying to make a clarification here based on the true use, so james, rudy, do you want to piggy back on my comments? >> i was only going to answer is it going to be a solely training facility like the man asked or large training facility as in san leandro (inaudible) 1800 students. the reason we have one locally in san francisco i was trying to express is so when there is needs in san francisco of training immediately for the workers in san

francisco i can get it without them having to travel in and out of the city and get what they need whether it is cpr, first aid and booms (inaudible) to get safety on the job, so in the executive office is where i'm at is in san lanadro so the purpose is putting people out to work in san francisco. i have 21 offices all over california and so the purpose is to have one locally to assist with those bodies. i are ask to over-turn the appeal but if we need to reapply i'm prepared to do what i need to do in san francisco to help out the city and workers of san francisco. >> 30 seconds. >> all i got. >> okay, thank you. so, we'll hear from the zoning administrator. anything further? >> i think i would reiterate that i cant do

anything as part of the hearing before the board. i just are think there is a fundamental challenge asking the board to make a different determination on a different question through the appeal process. i think-i feel at best if we wanted to do through the appeal process we need to continue to think about those options but i don't think that is going to be a clean option because even just the information provided tonight is far more extensive then what was provided in the appeal letter and i think there will be a certain amount information necessary to really make a detailed determination as to what the land use is. having said that, i'm happy to work on any updated filing expeditiously and not to put it at the back of the queue given the situation; i think it is clear san francisco is a strong union town. i'm

active and supportive in my own union local 21 and are they had to go through this when they had to find a new home back in 2014 and get a change of use permit for office and pay impact fees and everything else on mission street, so i get it, and happy to work and try to land on a decision whatever that is based on the most up to date and relevant information. i think the cleanest way to do is start over. i think trying to mike it part of this process is too plunky and cumbersome and probably not beneficial to any of the parties involved. that is just my opinion and obviously it is the matter is in the board's hands but i'm available for other questions you may have. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> so, i are like to start. i think mr. teeg just summed up my position. i think we can do

a continuance but we would be taking dirty laundry and trying to make it clean opposed to with ease and at no hardship, no added cost, no nothing by denying the appeal and letting the-inviting another request for letter of determination we have a much cleaner platform, the appellate can get done what they really need to get done by making sure that there is clarity to what they want to do. i dont hear the planning department mr. teeg saying, no way over my dead body is this going to happen. quite on the contrary and so i think starting all over again is really a win win situation for all parties much more efficient, much cleaner, less clunky to use your words mr. teeg so i would move to deny the appeal on the basis it was

properly issued and invite the parties to start all over again in a constructive and forthright fashion. >> president swig as remoonder the standard of review is error or discussion. >> i dont see error or abuse of discretion, so that would support denial of the appeal. >> any further discussion or everyone okay? motion from president swig to deny thupeel on the basis the zoning (inaudible) and it was properly issued. you want to add based on the facts presented by the applicant? >> no. >> on the motion commissioner lopez. >> aye: >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> motion carries 3-0 and are appeal denied. >> thank you. >> we are done. >> that concludes the hearing. >> thank you. good

night everyone. >> thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> happy pride. everyone. [applause] [crowd noise]. [music] >> amazing. incredible for the city. for the citizens. for our visitors and the fire department and our public safety partners to come together today

and to celebrate pride weekend. >> i came because this is my first, year of pride and i wanted to experience with my mom. i'm most excited for everything i will see. celebrities just surrounded by so many fun people. my besties. we'll have a great time. >> >> i'm most excited about the expression of freedom and things which have to be this way well is no other way to do it. everybody is wrong and we should all be like the pride people and proud to be who we are >> we are here to celebrate pride >> san francisco pride. it is my first one experiencing the new atmosphere and learning. >> my first one, too. >> so close we could not pass it

up. it is san francisco it is the biggest ones can you pass it up. [crowd noise] [music] [crowd noise] >> it means everything that we have a common goal a common operating picture and a common mission. it is great to be together and walk together and show that. [crowd noise] [sirens].

the message is the lbgtq community is reflect in the our police department in san francisco. it sends a message that there are members of the department the police department, sheriff's department, fire department that are just like the people that we encounter in san francisco. and i think it sends a message of hope the more we honor the lbgtq community now, the stronger we can be in standing up against those that don't want our representation. [crowd noise] [music] >> [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]. [crowd noise] [music] [music]

[drums] [crowd noise] this is my first time at the san francisco pride even though i have been here a couple years, i felt like now was the time to go. um -- really just coming to show my support and love for the whole community out here.

um, i'm really excited to be here today. >> i think i am most excited be such an arc mazing community come together. just the love and support i think that especially in san francisco, um, people bring together it is this such a deep feeling. and i'm excited feel that today. [crowd noise] [music] [music]

[sirens] [music] [crowd noise] whoa! [music] [cars honking] [sirens] [music] [horns] we never been to

a parade or something like that. >> i'm excited for the parade never been to an actual pride parade. pretty pumped. [crowd noise] [music] i'm excited celebrate with all of my queer people and to stand together in a hard time like we affirm each other and support each other. >> same, ditto.

>> [laughter]. [music] [crowd noise]. you love who you want to love >> happy pride. >> happy pride! >> go san francisco! happy pride! happy pride. >> happy frigin pride, everybody. [music] [music]