of the screen if you're watching the lives, stream or broadcast to block your phone number one calling in first all star 67, then the phone number. listen for the public comment. portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing. when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 60 mute yourself. you have three minutes, depending on the length of agenda and the volume of speakers. our legal system will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcasting live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore it's very important that people calling and reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there's interference with the meeting, if any of the participants or attendees on zoom needed disability, accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to alan conway, the board's legal system or send an email to board of appeals at ask .org. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public common or opinions. please note that well, we will take public

comment first from those members of the public were physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in our firm. all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance, if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony, evidentiary weight. raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so commissioners. we do have one housekeeping items right before the hearing started the parties for items 68 through 60. i'm sorry. the parties for item five appeal number 23-0128 at this is at 4 85 day street would like this item continue to june 21st. so we would need a motion in a boat to continue that commissioners on any motion. i

moved to continue the manager of june 21st. thank you. okay is there any public comment on this motion? please raise your hand. uh miss cara, i see you're here for 18 63 per pine right now we're continuing item five. appeal number 23-0128, so we're just taking public comment on that item. okay. i don't see any public comments. so on that motion, vice president lopez i limburg eppler president swig. okay that motion carries 5 to 0 and the matter is continued to june 21st. we are now moving on to item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction. but that is not on tonight's calendar here. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? i see one hand raised the phone number ending in 5936. please go ahead.

you may need to go ahead, please. i mean, broken sunset park side education and action committee, also known as speak, repeating my comments made at the capital planning committee on may 22nd and at the planning commission on may 20/5 the housing element and rina cycle number six will dictate housing for the next eight years. but does the housing element accurately account for the differences between the west side and the east side of the city. most of the pdr sites, especially sites around the east side. the west side has very few pdr site and all are small sites . there's the planning department believes that the housing element will change this. some of the east side neighborhoods have a high percentage of singles. whether website is mostly families. there's the planning department believe in the housing element. would create a massive demographic shift of singles from the east side to the west

side. the return on investment for developers is less than the west side. then on the east side , there's the planning department believes that the housing element which change market dynamics, the west side is in the fog built. the planning department believes that the housing element would change weather patterns. end quote subject for the redistricting process, speaks, submitted its own maps and did not support redistricting maps submitted by any citywide organization, including the one that speak as a member of thank you. okay thank you. is there any other general public comment? please raise your hands. okay i don't see any so we're going to move on to item number two commissioner comments questions commissioners. comments, questions seeing done. let's move on. okay so we'll move on to item number three. the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption or the minutes of the may 31st 2023 meeting. measures who have

motion to accept her comments on the minutes, please. had moved to adopt the minutes from our made may 31st meeting. thank you. okay is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? okay i don't see any. so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina commissioner eppler president swig. okay that motion carries 5 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number four. this is appeal number 23-004 jim reid versus department planning department building inspection planning department approval. subject property 34 20 to 34 24/16 street, appealing the issuance on january 20/5 2023 to j. davidson of an alteration permit existing three unit building modify lower unit at 34 24/16 street, remove window at rear yard bay and replaced with the door to allow access to the rear yard, modify alcove at rear to provide a laundry area lower

level. well and infill door at lower unit at kitchen area with one hour wall. this is permit number 2023 01230604 note on march 1st 2023 upon motion by commissioner limburg. the board voted for one present swig dissented to continue this matter to april 12 2023 so that the parties can attempt to come to an agreement with the participation of be on an alternative solution on april 12th 2023 upon motion by commissioner limburg. the board voted 4 to 0. to one vice president lopez absent to continue this matter to june, 7th 2023 so that won the permit holder can submit plans that accurately reflect existing conditions with the property and to the parties can attempt to come to an agreement with the participation of db i on an alternative solution. so as a preliminary matter, vice president lopez did you have the opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for the hearing, which took place on april 12th? yes i did. i'm ready to proceed. okay wonderful. so, for this case we will hear from the department's first now dbr.

the planning department want to go first. okay? you have three minutes. um, good evening president. suite commissioners matthew green, representing the department of building inspection tonight, so the plans that have been submitted by the architect so hill, shakira. have us come up with a simple solution with after consulting with kevin birmingham. they're just going to move the wall that encloses the washer dryer about six inches, and that should allow the door to close and f. if both parties are happy with the solution, i think it is a good solution. i'm willing to recommend adopting these plans. would you like to see the solution of the over it? yes, please. this is this is the existing, um the washer dryer.

commanding. moving this wall back about six inches, and that will allow what that will allow the washer dryer to reset and not block the exit. and it will allow the washer dryer too. being closed by that without sticking out and causing a in impedance towards the fire exit, correct? that that would solve the issue, right? that was the main issue. yes okay. thank you very much. any questions? thank you questions. thank you. we will not hear from the planning department. anything okay? we will now hear from j. davidson, the permit holder. good evening commissioners. we appreciate that. kevin birmingham made a site visit to the area involved on the 20/6 of april. and his

presence. there was extremely helpful in being able to identify a solution that we all agree to. wonderful. we have a question from president swick. first of all, um, thank you for being a really good landlord. because you didn't have to do this. um because we had legally compliant solution. and that's why i voted against, um in the first place, and now we have a compliance solution due to a landlord who was flexible who listened and cared enough to do do that. are you comfortable? i have to end up with a question because that's protocol. are you comfortable with the solution? yes. thank you very much. okay thank you. we will now hear from the appellant jim reed. i don't see him here. uh, is he on zoom?

he's not on zoom either. so president swig. we can either try to call him or just confirm with the other parties that they've spoken to him. maybe we should just try to give him a quick call. a quick call, so we tried. he's changed his phone number recently. so if you're going to give him a college, just want to make sure you have the right number. do you mind? not on the record, but just going over to alec. and if you can write it down, or if you don't mind. thank you. thank you very much. and it's your understanding that he's an agreement with the adoption of the revised plans. yes he he said he was in

agreement when kevin birmingham was there, however, since friday , when we sent him the plans we told him that he had the option to rescind his appeal, and he said he would do that. but he hasn't so that calls it into question. thank you. thank you. to do the alexander with the board of appeals you had you had

a hearing today and they're adopting the plan set. do did you agree with that plan set? okay? shit on the record. yes. the uh the plans are acceptable to me. ah! ah! i guess that's it . i looked him over and they seem to be what the inspector who came by suggested, and i talked with him and we brainstorm stuff and i understood completely what he recommended, and it looks like it's reviewed in the plants, and my thought is that we could build the wall. since it's not a bearing wall. it could be three quarter inch plywood with five a sheet rock and that would save three more inches. but you're an agreement correct. okay. thank you. i appreciate it. you're welcome. bye bye. okay? well

that's good. um thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comments. so commissioners, this matter submitted. make sure she'll have a motion commissioner limburg. uh before i make a motion i just wanted to say thank you to the parties. i was the primary advocate of continuing this and so that the parties could come to some sort of agreement. and it seems that that is exactly what happened. so i appreciate especially the landlord trusting in the process and working with b and with with your tenants to come to the solution, and with that i would move to a i have to have to grant the appeal or i'm sorry. all that commissioner trust me. commissioner trasvina wants to speak, but you would be moving to grant appeal. um and upholding on the permit on the condition of the revised to

require the adoption of the revised plans, which i believe are dated may 1st if you can confirm please inspector ring. may 1st is what it says. okay? okay. thank you. so we'll hear from commissioner which is vino. thank you. i just want to underscoring and join. commissioner longer lindbergh and president swigs comments appreciating the work of the parties to and end of the end of the departments to bring this to a what appears to be a very a visual level of cooperation and communication among all the parties, which i think is critically important for all of the work that comes before the board of appeals. i want to thank everyone for helping us be able to take up the take up the motion and ideally, pass it unanimously. thank you. okay?

thank you and commissioner lamberg. what is the basis for your motion? uh the basis for the motion is that new plans were submitted that reflect the desires of the parties. okay thank you. so we have a motion from commissioner limburg to grant appeal in issue the permanent on the condition that would be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans dated may 1st 2023 on the basis that these new plans address the agreement of the parties. on that motion, vice president lopez. commissioner trasvina commissioner. president swig motion carries 5 to 0 and the plans are adopted and i'll reach out. we do have a rehearing period that we get through. and then when the written decision is issued, you could submit revised plans. i'll send you some information on that process. thank you very much. okay so we are now moving on to

item number six. a six b succeed in 60. these are appeal numbers . 22 dash. there was 7 to 7374 and 75 and 18, 63 pine street and. we've previously read the description for these appeals for the record and as a preliminary matter of few minutes before the hearing started. the party said they wanted to continue this item. however the departments would like to weigh in on the appeals . so i don't know if you want to make a request for a continuance of the reasons why, and then the departments can respond. you would have three minutes each. okay? good evening commissioners ryan patterson of paterson and o'neill on behalf of the appellant's thank you for your time tonight. i know this has been continued a number of times the parties have been working in earnest to try to reach a deal

on these numerous appeals. and we have, i think, gotten there we have a written agreement pending the architects completion of plans. um, they were expected to be done by five o'clock and it's 5 20, so maybe they needed a little extra time . but we would like to review the plans before actually signing possible. um and i want to thank board staff for all of their help in getting to this point. i think it does take a lot of work but generally leads to a much better outcome to have an agreement than not to. even if we win the appeal. i think it's a better outcome between neighbors. happy to answer any questions about where we are with this how we got here. um, but i think we're done. thank you very much. okay thank you. i don't see any questions. so we will now hear from okay, presidents. will you have a question? i'm i'm very pleased that but you haven't burdened us with a lot of you know, fighting

between neighbors, and i love the fact that the neighbors are talking and being constructive. um, i hope as a result of your findings, and i hope the findings workout well, that this sets a precedent for what is what happens when there's a common wall. um, between two apartments to help all of the citizens of san francisco who may have this circumstances. so i'm like, that's why i'm looking forward. i'm looking forward to resolution to make your your clients happy and the other side happy, but i'm also looking forward to very constructive resolution, which can benefit the future. and set a precedent so others won't have to go where you have been forced to go. so thank you, mr patterson. you didn't state for the record, which date you wanted. and chief inspector green is not available on june 21st so it would much

should be july. 12th would be the next hearing after that. thank you. so the formal continuance request came from the permit holder and i think they want this to be as soon as possible. the next available. my clients are also not available. june 21, so whatever works for the board is appreciated. how's our schedule in july 12th? well let's hear from the db. i we have time and in july we have. welfare 26 the 12th. is he. the 12th is busy, but if they have come to an agreement, we don't have to spend a lot of time. okay well, july 12th or 26, okay , and if it's for the purpose of coming to an agreement, we can also schedule them first, so they don't have to coarse, coarse, so we will now hear from the permit the attorney for the permit holder mascara, do you

have three minutes to make your request for a continuance? thank you so much. president swig members of the board of appeals. thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to address you. as mr patterson indicated. we have reached an agreement between the parties with respect to the party wall and resolution of the appeals were in the process of finalizing everything. and so as i indicated in my email to miss rosenberg right before the hearing we were requesting your consideration for an appeal for a hearing a continuance to hearing to the next available meeting. we're fine with july 12th as the opportunity to present this item. the parties have worked together in diligence and with an effort to try to make sure that any resolution here is also consistent. with the 3 11 process that my client is undertaking with planning and an effort to resolve the concerns that db and planning had raised previously, so we're looking

forward to having this all resolved and appreciate your consideration of this matter is hopefully being finalized on july 12th thank you so much. and if you have any questions please feel free to ask. thank you. president suite has a question, so it's simply not to show bias to one party or the other. i want also compliment you and thank you for being diligent and working hard to reach and to collaborate and reach a final resolution on this. it's very, very helpful, and i know that it will benefit you both in the long run, so thank you very much. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. good evening, president swig vice president lopez and members of the board. i'm tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. with all due respect planning department is not in support. yet another continuance for this item. as

you're aware, this item has been continuing to know dustin seven times already. throughout all of these continuance, the city has been waiting patiently in his prepared to present to the board with their information and recommendation. while we fully encourage and support all parties working together, communicating and resolving issues and concerns outside of the appeal process. in the case of 18 63 pine street, we believe there is information that the board needs to know about. in consideration and considering this appeal, which will help the department in moving this project forward. at this time, the department recommends that you deny the request for a continuance. allow the hearing to move forward tonight. okay thank you. we will now hear from d b. i. um good. good evening

again. matthew green, referencing the department of building inspection. um i share this tams frustration with the number of continuances here. i asked to speak here because just to let you know the department's going to recommend revoking this permit because the party walls were not labeled correctly in the initial permit. i informed the permit holder of this back in november, and i believe that was the original reason for the original continuance. but i understand the board's desire to get come up with a solution. that's half pleases everyone. so i would just like you to know that we were going to recommend revocation of the permit tonight . and if you do continue it, i would hope that the plans be submitted to us, uh, well beforehand and that this party wall situation is addressed clearly on the plants. thank you . thank you. we have a question from president swig, then commissioner trasvina. thank

you, mr green. thank you, miss tam for your opinions on this, um, first dry question, mr green. mr green. if these, uh should should this information be heard by the council and also the permit holder and the appellant, um so that you are very clear. on your position that the plans that are going to be presented to us on in july on july 12th. they better be complete was probably your message here. it doesn't matter whether both sides agree. if the permit if the plans are wrong, and you can't accept the plans, then your recommendation is that, um this permit is going to get revoked anyway, is that the direct message to ah! both parties. well, i would say if they're not clear i will recommend revoking the permit your decision, of course. really good message. thank you very much. um secondly, miss tam and

mr green jointly normally when we come across situations like this, uh and it's because somebody wants it. uh, postponed to a later date. um one party is suffering if there is a dis ah, dissenting party. um it's generally under the guise or the claim of manifest injustice. um and i and that's what causes us to have a discussion amongst ourselves because we don't want to present a manifest injustice to the permit holder or the appellant. in this case, i think i take the position that i like your patients to be extended. i know it's trying. it's just one of the many speed bumps that you go along the road and i don't see that manifested. i don't see the manifest injustice. to the planning department or two d b. i, and it would be my position that, um, we wouldn't accept

your request because i would accept as a speed bump along the road as you have many speed bumps along the road, and we do on about a weekly basis. so i would ask your for me. i'd like to ask your patients and i presumed you would. we just wanted to put our position up there? i just want to be clear. nothing, you know. nothing personal, but that's take a deep breath at a at a couple of weeks to it, and you'll be fine. okay, thank you. okay thank you. so now we need, um so i guess they're they're making a request to continue this item. you can either entertain that request. and what we did we did. we should too. sorry. how much? um does anybody have a motion to move this forward to july? 12th?

if not, i'll do so. yes. moved okay. is there any public comment on vice president lopez's motion to continue this item these items to july 12th, please raise your hand. okay i don't see any hands raised. no public comment. so on that motion commissioner trasvina. oh excuse me. can we just clarify the purpose of the continuance so that the parties are clear. to allow the parties to continue to confirm okay and come up with a set of plans accurate plans that address the concerns of the appellant or, uh, inspector green, the appellant and the departments, right? okay. okay so on on that motion commissioner trasvina commissioner lemberg commissioner, eppler present swig motion carries 5 to 0 and these items are continued to july 12th. thank you. so we are

now moving on to item number seven. this is a special item discussion and possible action. on april 20/6 2023, the board of appeals heard appeal number 23-008 and appeal by friends of the mission greenway of a building permit issued to 17th and peralta llc to replace offense at 9 57 treat avenue popularly known as parcel 36. the b o a granted the appeal unanimously with the support about the planning department and the department building inspection because 17th and peralta llc was not the owner record for 9 57 treat avenue. personal 36 has no apparent owner record and multiple parties seek to utilize the space, including both parties to the appeal. the commissioners will consider a draft letter to be sent on behalf of the b o a to mayor breed supervisor ronan president peskin and relevant city departments requesting that they intervene in the dispute between the public and property owners adjacent parcel 36 and to take a proactive role in resolving the ambiguous ownership status of parcel 36.

so i believe supervisor ronan was going to be giving a presentation. hello welcome. hello, um before and we yes, commissioner, comment and preamble before before. yeah absolutely. could be seated. please. we have a few comments. thank you. not preempting you just order of things. um first of all for the for those who weren't around for the public who's looking listening today, and just as a as a refresher, we had an item, which was related to talking about the permit issuance for a gate. um that permit was denied because it was , uh, issued improperly. that's what we were talking about. and we resolve that issue in the context of resolving that issue we heard from what about 50 people from in the public that there was a lot of disturbance

around this unresolved land use issue, which is out of the board of appeals jurisdiction and something that we cannot touch. um and so, um, but this part of appeals is very concerned with serving the public. this floor is a bit more of appeals did not like the keep the public hanging . this part of appeals likes to direct the public towards resolution of their issues because we feel that we serve the public and providing them those services to get their issues resolved. that that we can't, um, due to our jurisdiction. um thus, um, it was discussed and resolved that that we would come up with a letter commissioner limburg was kind enough to volunteer to craft that letter. that letter has been circulated amongst the various board members and has been revised to all everybody's mutual satisfaction. and that's

where we stand. and i'm going to let commissioner lindbergh talk about. that letter. but the uh but i wanted i wanted to underscore the importance of this and that, um, it was our intent on this board, as it is always are intent on this board to serve the public to satisfy the needs of the public to point the public in the right direction. to satisfy always there needs because, you know, we understand that this is new territory to many in the public . we do this because we're commissioners and we kind of get educated the public quite often . they're newbies, so they don't they don't get it. there's one before cut commissioner remember moves forward. there is one question that i would like like to ask. of the city attorney. there was a lot of, um bumbling about two words called eminent domain. because isn't it easy just to eminent domain the thing and when we can choose to do what we can do. can you give us

the land mines around eminent domain, please? and so um, we don't talk. we can't talk about that anymore. give us the ground rules or or protocols around. the use of any discussion of that. not a legal opinion. just oh, my. president's wig. i'm actually not in a position to give you a roadmap to eminent domain. it's really outside of my expertise and my role as a lawyer to the board of appeals. ah um, in terms of eminent domain, this city department that would be responsible for that would be the department of real estate. um and you have addressed the letter to andriy co. pernik who is the director of that department, but i'm not in a position to give an opinion on that issue. that's exactly a perfect answer, and that's what we wanted information information information. um and

then pass it to commissioner limburg so he can present um the letter. formally. thank you, president. wig. um. i was. i volunteered to draft this letter on behalf of the board with full support from my fellow commissioners. um, i. mhm by way of personal admission. my drafting of it was delayed by a few weeks due to a family crisis i was dealing with um, which is why it took several weeks after the april 20/6 hearing to actually draft this letter. um and the scope of the letter was very, very narrow, and that was presenting what we as a board heard at the april 20/6 hearing when we had when we had this, uh

, this this major hearing in which we had about 50 people in public comment, um i. frankly, didn't expect this to be controversial in anyway. um but i'll go through what my letter was, um, i there are a few suggestions i have received from commissioner trasvina via email and a couple of other little nit edits that i've determined myself that i will suggest before. before we actually approve it, uh, they're fairly minor edits, but um essentially , we i first wrote a summary of the of the appeal and of very brief background of the of the parcel and what the appeal before us was on april 20/6 the relationship between with monkey brains and the parcel and the fact that it's not owned by anyone. um i noted that the

appeal was very narrow in scope . it was whether a gate, uh, permit for a gate. uh, from monkey brains and adjacent property owner was proper. we as a board decided unanimously as miss rosenberg said, uh to that it was not properly granted and again, with the support of both planning and the department of building inspection. um. in regards to the ask, uh, what we heard as a board over dozens and dozens of public comment. ah from members of the public at large was that they had felt that supervisor ronan's office had been too hands off. that was words from the public, not for me. um and, uh. essentially you know, there's this. this is a

unique legal situation. there aren't a lot of parcels in major cities in the united states that don't have any owner of record. it's a very unusual situation that led to some very unusual things going on and a lot of hostility and a lot of crisis, frankly, um and. we felt that it was our prerogative as a board to urge the parties involved. uh two or or i'm sorry, urged the city departments who we felt should be involved to do this, um and, uh, we addressed this letter to several different city departments, um, to the mayor to supervisor ronan and president paschen as president of the board, as well as the directors of the department of building inspection, the director of recreation and parks department , the director of the real estate division of the general services agency and the assessor recorder, each of whom has a ah , a separate role in in each of

these in some area related to personal 36. um. i will note during the april 20/6 hearing. i personally mentioned that eminent domain may be appropriate here. that was my personal opinion and not an opinion of the board and not something that is being recommended in this letter. that was something that i said during the hearing. um. our goal and my goal in writing. this letter was to um was. to help this issue get toward resolution and a series of mission local articles and an article in the chronicle in recent weeks have pretty clearly shown in a increased hostility levels between the parties to this appeal that have nothing to do with this appeal. but, um, it's definitely something that we're aware of, but also not something that was

really in the scope of what this letter was intended to do, which was addressed what was brought to the board on april 20/6. um with all those things said i want to pull up commissioner trans venus email from earlier um. that i have to find again. i'm sorry. i have it right here. oh, thank you. um. okay. the edits. nope. thank you. thank you. okay the edits are, um, how do i do this? um.

okay in the paragraph that begins with it was clear to the boa on the second page. um right before the italicized portion. um or the sentence. prior to that. i would like to amend the language to instead we believe that supervisor run ins office, the mayor's office or both, should intervene and mediate, not past tense but present tense and the rest of the sentence would remain the same. ah and in let's see. sorry. i'm not finding this. oh, the final sentence in, uh. okay, the

paragraph that says first, the conflict between monkey brains and the appellant the last sentence in that i would like to edit to the b o a did not have the opportunity to hear from supervisor ronan's office at the april 20/6 hearing or after the april 20/6 hearing, so they're completely regarding this matter. so the commissioners do not have a complete record of what transpired. um the other ended, i found was the very top of page three, the first line adding an s at the end of recreation and parks department , which i did in the heading, but not in the body. um those are my three. edits i'd like to submit, but i'm definitely looking forward to hearing what my fellow commissioners have to say as well. mr trump, xenia, do you have any comments and then i'll i'll ask the reigning two commissioners before we hear

from supervisors runnings representative for their comments as well. so we have a clear understanding of what the letter fully states. okay that works for you, commissioner josephina. yes thank thank you, uh, presidents wigan. i wanna command and thank ah, my colleague, commissioner limburg for taking the initiative to try to encapsulate not only the views of the board but also the views of the public. and as i look at this matter it's entitled friends of the mission . greenway versus d v. i it is not be away. versus supervisor ronan. and unfortunately it has turned into that, potentially, and i do not think that serves. ah, um the members of the parties. the concern, stakeholders or or or or the deliberations that everyone has

put a lot of time into i as as i review. um. parts of the supervisors letter. i think it's important to recall how we got to this point. and i'll just be very brief. um uh and i want to get into the elements that i had suggested, uh, commissioner lamberg has reviewed some some of them taking some of them, not taking others. but to, um i think this is probably an area where one of the areas where the all parties seem to agree about the frustration with the city of trying to get get this matter resolved. 11 of the parties. wow, elizabeth creeley. says we would normally work with our district supervisor. and had numerous meetings with her and her then eight amy beinart. i believe this was in 2018 2019.

they were fruitful. it's been hard left, enter date. we have not found the same reception to our assertion that the neighborhood needs a pedestrian through way, not a commercial parking lot. also testifying. another member, another representative of one of the parties, um well, finishing off. when miss crilly said was in short, we have worked with her office and it was dependent on her aid. atlanta, laura hanna. testified for years, the supervisor told us we have to wait for the delinquent taxes to accumulate and then we as a city have the authority to go to the next step of auctioning off the land. no agency wants to touch the issue to go out of their way to resolve it. so we have a history to this matter. we don't have it. we do not have a resolution. i believe it was. our goal is to try to make sure that all the all the potential parts of the city that could work on this. were brought to the table for the constituents. and it's not all that surprising

that since the time of this manner came before us, it's escalated. so that is the purpose of the letter. i would say, though, that um with regard to the. suggested amendment that commissioner lundberg accepted. i also wanted to delete from the letter the sentence that said that several members of the public expressed that they felt that supervisor ronan's office have been too hands off with this situation. i don't know whether members of the public and really fully assess what an elected official is doing what their staff is doing. i defer more to the to the parties to tell us what has gone on on this history. i don't think members of the public while their value their views are important. i'm not sure whether they can evaluate that and the following sentences as we didn't have the opportunity to hear from supervisors ronan it's office

seems to cancel out any judgment we can make, and i don't believe we were making any judgment as to the activities of her office. so, uh, when it comes time to amending the letter, i would suggest dropping both of those sentences and i agree and appreciate supervisor commissioner lamberg making the change as to asking the mayor's office supervisor, ronan's office and others to get involved at this point. i'm pleased to say that there has been some activity in progress since the time of our hearing. and really, that was that was the main purpose. in my view of the letters to get the get city bodies acting on this frustrating issue for everybody involved, and we like to see a positive resolution. thank you. commissioner vignette before i turned the commissioner, you reference still letter from supervisor ronan. not everybody may have seen it. we've seen it obviously because we had to review it for this hearing, but there was a response letter from

supervisor run and that's what you're referring to. i just wanted to recognize that it was a formal letter. and it exists. and i'm sure that her representative tonight will. um uh um explain it in the same way that um, commissioner limburg went through. our letter for the public commissioner. sorry for the interruption. no no, thank you. and i appreciate that. i support the comments that have been made by my fellow commissioners regarding the nature of the appeal that we heard in april and the rationale behind the letter that is currently being discussed. one very, very technical knit on the letter. it is. technically when the world department is used the recreation park department singular it's one of those weird, you know, archaic things , but but it is what it is. but that aside, i want to thank commissioner lindbergh for taking up the pen on this

because it is not necessarily an easy letter to write in. our process is not an easy process to navigate because in the regular world that letter would circulate amongst us and we would privately discussed and we would present ford a complete work and not a draft to the public, but because of the nature of the brown act in our position that draft as well written as it may be, has to be presented to the public before we can go back and work on it as a committee and so this process of refining. the letter is natural, normal, given the way that we are, and i am thankful that commissioner limburg gave us the base from which that we are working today. thank you. thank you, commissioner lopez. thank you, president swig. thank you want echo the words of appreciation that have been said for commissioner limburg. for holding the pen. it's not an

easy task. it's an odd process, uh, have to edit. ah you know, in in group mode in public, it's so i just wanted to thank you for those efforts and also wish you and your family the best. with the second situation that that you referenced so good luck with that. um i guess what my comments or are very much in line with. with some of the edits that commissioner has been a shared, i think the way that i think about a letter like this. is you know, let's say we're the dentist, right? and somebody comes in. with the dental problem. and in the course of that appointment, they say, but i've got this thing on my back and you take a look at that. and with this letter is essentially a referral. two. the doctor who might be able to help the other specialists. they made who may be able to help because it's outside of our scope of

expertise and thought that every of our jurisdiction so to that end, i think you know, we just have to remember that we're on the same team within the city. in that at the end of the day to echo president swings, comments. we just want to help the public would want to help. the parties who appeared before us to complain of the pain that they were experiencing. so i think you know, with that in mind if this is a simple referral uh, which which, in all honesty, i think we can all agree. i mean it is addressed. you know, first and foremost to the mayor, as as the first address, see the other departments, the commissioner limburg, you know. named but i do think that you know the public statements. about. uh response that they were expecting. or responses that

they were dissatisfied by. i'm not sure that we have to. include that substance. in the letter, particularly when we didn't have the benefit of. of you know other, uh, parties in the city, too. uh, repute. refute. give context about. or just give us background you know about you know what's going on before. i think we've gotten some of that background now, thankfully. from the district supervisor. but that's only one of the parties. i think there was. you know, there was there were comments and frustration expressed about different parts of the city, right in the different parts of the city government and administrative, administrative bodies, and so. to my mind. you know, the i would agree with the sentences that commissioner try xenia. addressed. i would also want to remove the reference to

potential shortcomings in the district supervisors. supervisors response. and then another one that this might be my own thing. but the first sentence of the fifth paragraph it says it was clear the boa that both parties of this appeal have legitimate concerns that may be appropriate for civil court. but also the litigation is not the best option available. i'm not so sure about that last part, actually. i'm not sure that that that that intervention and mediation you know the now we have the benefit of the supervisors letter. supervisors is actually saying, like, hey, we've tried to intervene and mediate. and that hasn't resolve the issue. and so i guess i would want to soften that a bit. or maybe eliminate that altogether because it may be that a court of law is the best place. to resolve the

underlying issues here. um so that's that's just want to chew on. but that's generally the gist of. what i'd like to see is just to kind of narrow. um, you know, some of the some of the language about ah, you know the public comments. i mean, the public says all kinds of things and in the hearings before us and like commissioner, trasvina said. they don't always have the benefit of having the full background of the full context of what's going on behind the scenes. whether in a supervisor's office and in the city departments and agencies who respond to these matters. um and so i'd like to kind of narrow the focus of particularly in the fourth paragraph to just leave it as a as a simple referral. commission member before you, um move forward. i would like to request that, uh

be before you respond to the commissioners that we with any comments on changes to the letter that we say that for after we hear from, uh, supervisor ronan's um, representative. if there's anything else you have to say that so that we can wordsmith this after we hear from supervisor run ins, um, representative, if that's okay, just gonna respond to what they were saying. i'm just going to ask. so okay. that's fine. thank you. go ahead. that's what that's what i was going to do. so yeah, this will give you a breather to think about all the great advice you just got. so, um so. okay. you ready to hear from super? yes. public comment. yes. welcome. uh thank you, and i'm sure your time will be extended if there are questions.

thank you. thank you. correct. i'm sorry. five minutes correct. good evening commissioners. president swig. um you know, thank you for giving us the opportunity to come and speak with you this evening. um i have to say that i did want to start this comment off in a different way. but i do appreciate the comments that were made here just now about realizing and expressing that there was a lack of understanding of what our office has done. um but i do. i would be very remiss to say that if i did not say that we are very disappointed that, um this letter has been scheduled in this body. it is far beyond jurisdiction of this board. um to opine on to what a supervisor has or has not done. um i will leave it at that. but i just i really hope that in the future if there is a question, you know we're downstairs. two floors. um there's four staff here you get,

um, you know, super wrote supervisor on and it is very amenable to speak with anyone of you. so i asked that in the future. um if there is any question about this or any other matter that you please reach out first. um and the other thing that i want to mention, is that you know, as you stated, you did not have the benefit of a long history with a lot of the folks that came to public comment, and , um, what happened was that the sport allowed itself to be weaponized by these advocates. um i have had many, many, many conversations with probably all of the people that came to public comment. over the course of two years supervisor ronin worked on this project when she was a legislative aide under david campos. um as was mentioned amy barnett. bernard worked on this project as well. there are currently six city attorneys who are working on this project. this is a complete mess, right? so what i want to

do today is actually just lay it all out of what is happening and what's going on. just so you understand. because i guarantee you that the friends of the greenway are going to appeal every single thing that monkey brains plans to do. if they try to change a lightbulb, they will be there to complain. so i just want to lay it all out and answer any questions that you may have. so i will begin at the beginning in 19 06, the john carter company granted parcel c to the pacific railroad company with a reversion eri, right? this is a very common deed, where once the property was failed or ceased to be used as rail, it would revert back to its grantee. the problem here is that the john carter company, john centric company went defunct in 1936. the rail line didn't go defunct until 1994. so we have 60 year gap with no ownership that there was for

some reason the d did not revert back to the john central company. northern airs. and was lost. that is for one of the parcels. parcel b has right now . 15 different listed owners, some of the trusts that are part that have partial ownership no longer exists. we do have contact with one of the listed owners, a 97 year old woman who lives in sonoma county. her name is elizabeth crim of the crime family. the crime family was the family that granted the land directly across the street at bark and needles, needles and those to the city to build the park. there were large landowning family in the 18 hundreds that were cattle ranchers in san francisco. their family now only holds 13% of that parcel. and the rest are unknown. some don't some no longer exist. um the smallest parcel there. there were family

are unknown to us. we have no contact with him and not being able to reach them. so um, i will just let you know what else we've done so in. um i believe it was about 2010 1 super tree. rubenstein one of the advocates with the greenway approach supervisor ronin with the idea to farm this land. everybody was in agreement. nothing would please probably also franciscans more than to add more green space to our city. unfortunately we had a roadblock. 30 seconds as i just described. we do not know who who is the owner. we have asked the city attorney to look deeper into try to find the heirs to make a on offer or to even find the person to come and tell us what to do with their land. the city does not intervene in private land disputes. that is inappropriate and illegal. this is privately owned land. the issue here is

that the greenway advocates have been told this fact many, many, many times they have refused to acknowledge the definition of the words that were spoken and they came here and spoke to you as if there was a mystery as if there was a question from president swig. thank you. first of all, i'd like to thank you. like thanks, supervisor runnin, um when there were statements made me was the statement maker to go see a district supervisor and let that office do their jobs? that's the that's your job, unfortunately, uh, to serve the public and it wasn't intended at you personally supervise rosen in personally if it would have been i'll pick one supervisor peskin supervisor preston supervisor. uh. pan anyone? we are indiscriminate. we would i would have said exactly the same thing. go see

your supervisor because that's the protocol. all right. so uh, we recognize that you serve the public. we serve the public pretty good, too. we work with really hard, too. and that's why we're here because we're dedicated and you're dedicated to and we appreciate that dedication. and so it wasn't directed. anybody personally wasn't directed at your office. it could have been anyone. you're just you're just the lucky member. that that that that got the direction so if there any offense was taken, we didn't mean it. okay thank you. second of all, thank you. for this information. it's very important. now i said earlier that the majority of the people , um and we have to take things face value. we don't have the history that you you all do right. when somebody steps to that podium, we have to make the assumption of the lowest common denominator, except if it's a lawyer who we know, uh he's going right now, mr patterson. we see him regularly. we know him. alright we know his

background. we know he's a professional, hard gun and he's good at it. alright, but but for the most part most of the citizens who stepped to the podium. um they're really scared the first time at the rodeo. they don't understand the rules and it's our job to make them feel comfortable, served and recognized. and so we have to make the assumption that nobody knows anything if they are a member of the public because lowest common denominator, nothing personal to them. ah they're smart people. and so when somebody comes that that podium, we have to go to the lowest common denominator and make the assumption that we have to give them context. we have to give them information. we have to give them direction in the best way that we can serve them. so when we say something, like, go see your district supervisor, it's because that is the protocol or and also we understand that the district supervisors, the concierge you know you you're the concierge and you're going to tell them

well, listen, we love you will handle that. but in the case of private land disputes, we don't do that. and the people who can give you a better opinion of that is the department. real estate. so would you like a name for the department of real estate will give you that that service and that's what we are the intent of uh, our our action. and our service to the public was all about. we wanted to direct them now. um there on the unfortunate part is that that your office and this is not a criticism. your office had two bites of the apple and we don't we don't do outreach. and in fact, if your office called me i couldn't talk to you about a case because the protocol this commission is that we can't talk. i have a mirror called me and i'm meryl appointee. if london called me and said rick, i need to talk to you about that. i'm sorry. london. it's something that we're going to want to show up. the hearing

show up the hearing, so we can't necessarily outreach to you. you certainly can outreach us but what you can do is you can show up and, um again, that's not a criticism. but i would ask, ask, ask a request. if you see something like this coming up again help us. show up. and request time, request public comments or get on the agenda as a department that needs to provide commentary because especially the second by the apple. there was one by the apple. we all didn't know what was coming, but second by the apple, that will be the second part of this hearing. we all knew it was coming, and you probably did, too. and we sure could have used your your help a little bit, so the intent is really serving the public and understand. we have to assume that everybody who is not a recognized professional that walks up to that podium. we have to assume that we're starting a jump street there's and they have no information. they have

no context, and that's why i'm so clear about creating context . you've you've heard examples of that tonight. so once again, i risk respect you guys tremendously. your service, your dedication we know from our lumps on our body from, you know, being here. it's pretty tough out there. so we respect that. and please don't take this as a you know, as an offensive against ear office or in any way, shape or form. we're just trying to help the public. so and thank you send our appreciation to supervisors running for her service, please. sure thank you. thank you. just if you would like i can also discuss, uh, the eminent domain process, if you would like clarity. it is not something that we were done with this case . it was a case about a gate. that's right on that, and so that's something that's going to be in illegal. that's gonna be illegal discussion. our council

. uh as indicated that she doesn't even have jurisdiction talked about that so i would request. it's probably real interesting, and i'd love to hear about it privately. okay thanks very much. thank you so much, and i didn't get your name at the beginning. if you could fill out a speaker card, that would be helpful. thank you. thank you for your time. okay we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment on this item? members of i hogged that just now, any other questions or comments for the gentleman? okay? okay. thank you very much. is there anyone in the room? who would like to if you want to provide public comment, please approach the microphone. and after you're done speaking, if you could fill out a speaker card and give it to mr long way, the legal assistant thank you. so you can just go up to the microphone and give us your public comment and you have three minutes. thank you, um, executive director rosenberg,

commissioners of the board of appeals. um my name is heather lubeck. i was here before and mission kids is a nonprofit. i'm co director of mission kids. preschool mission. kids is a nonprofit city funded early childcare facility that has been serving low and moderate income families in the mission district for almost 20 years. over 75% of our 80 enrolled families received tuition subsidies and the majority of children attend for free mission kids owns and operates out of property developed with significant city funding the borders parcel 36 mission kids agrees with public comments already submitted, indicating that d nine supervisor office has been responsive to the concerns raised regarding the ongoing intimidation of our school community by the mission greenway members, including multiple visits by d nine staff to the site and facilitated coordination with the san francisco police department. further we believe that while the board of appeals intent is

good, and we appreciate your effort to find a resolution, we do not support the board of appeals letter in the current draft form for the same reason stated in the public comments submitted by monkey brains. further we support the same factual corrections and updates offered in those comments. mission kids shares grave concerns about mission greenway member tactics that have included physical and verbal intimidation of our staff and of our families, as well as vandalism and violence in close proximity to our children's play space, while mission kids absolutely supports the creation of green space as stated in our pre previously submitted statement, we respectfully request that the board of appeals and city agencies do not further emboldened and legitimize the illegal actions of this group as it presents a serious safety concern for the children, families and staff at the school. i would also like to add and clarified that both the school and monkey brains have legal rights to use personal 36 , but the guerilla group has no such rights. thank you for your

time. thank you. is there anyone else in inside the room who would like to provide public comment? please you can line up over there. thanks. please go ahead. good evening commissioners. my name is ana herrera. i'm another legislative aide in supervisor ronan's office. um i do wish we had had the courtesy to complete a presentation to you without the limited time in any other commission, our body or were granted that but, um, given that my colleague couldn't finish his statement, i just wanted to express given the letter from the supervisor, our office being here. i hope you can now see that we have been engaging in this process, which is what you're asking us to do. i just wonder. what the need for the letter. being formally submitted now is now that we're here and discussing it happy to continue discussing it happy to have another item. we're going to continue engaging with with all the folks just as mission kids was just here. we're talking to me the mission greenway folks. we just had a meeting with them

again on monday. um and with monkey brains, so i just i just wonder what the purpose of moving forward with the letter is. that's what i'm asking. thank you. thank you. thank you. okay, next speaker, please. you can come up and approach you have three minutes. overhead, please. i don't know if you can. read that. um hi. my name is kelly menendez. i'm an artist. small business owner. a mom and i'm married to alex menendez, co owner of monkey brains. i've lived in san francisco since 95 in the mission district since 2007. monkey brains is a small business, providing internet to the community. um the day they received the keys to the building mission. greenway declared. war mission local reached out and mission, greenway began to push a narrative of monkey brains tech corporation moved into the mission and creating a private parking lot, which is not true.

they would like to use the building is traditionally used. and not contain full ownership of the parcel with could collapse out collaterally collaboration machine. greenway also turned down an offer of collaboration to continue their garden with monkey brains, providing money and even water resources. um since receiving the keys, alex and rudy have been consistently met at the building by a small group of mission. greenway agitators videotaping them by saying slanderous comments things like you're not latin. your name is not alejandro. this is what the mafia looks like. overlaid with a photo of alex. they're a bunch of entitled neighbor hating psychopaths, um, show and that's part of that, um, including a b o a position. uh that may or may not be supported. they have gone after current customers, saying do not use monkey brains for service. additionally these individuals have threatened to burn it all down with kerosene have videoed inside the building have flown drones in the face of

roofers that we're replacing a roof, which was permitted, um, have numerous unwarranted db complaints and literally punched rudy in the face an incident that the san francisco chronicle reported on with video keep in mind monkey brains has been looking for a warehouse for years. at the end of last year, the place they currently rent in soma flooded and they were quite excited when they found a home for their company. also monkey brains has still not moved into the behind their building at this time. the situation has reached a point where i fear for the safety of my family, monkey brains, employees and other owners adjacent to the parcel, a little knowledge of monkey brains history from my side when i met alex and rudy in 2007, monkey brains, head zero employees, alex and rudy shared a small office and even then gave up for gate free dialogue services to low income families. since then, um, really moved to san francisco with his three children and wife to further invest here in san francisco. combined we have sent for children to public schools and

our families live in the mission in vernal neighborhoods. 30 seconds, monkey brains has since grown to 60 employees. their employees are 42% minority and people of color. i hope this understands who we are, what we're trying to do and how we're trying to come up, compromise and support the community. i moved to strike this letter as it doesn't properly recognize who mission greenway is, has repeatedly they've repeatedly demonstrated illegal acts in the study. isn't um this letter employees the city to negotiate between two people and rewards their behavior. thank you, thanks for their time speaker card. thank you. thank you. any other person in the room who wants to provide public comment? okay so we're gonna move to zoom? yes, okay. is there anyone else who wants to provide public comment after this lady? if so, please move forward. okay, please go ahead. you can approach the microphone. you have three minutes. good evening

board of commissioners. my name is julie, um, ottoman attorney with the law firm of bard, coffin lewis and trap i represent monkey brains. um thank you for your interest in in attempting to resolve this ongoing dispute, but there are some things in the letter that i want to call attention to that are factually just inaccurate it first, i think, as the district nine office made clear it is not within their legal power or any city agencies power to dictate the current or the future use of this parcel because the parcel is private property. it is not public property. there is no such thing as private property that does not have a legal owner of record. the letter suggests that there is no owner of record and that is simply not true of any private property. so i do think, though, that i agree that this dispute has highlighted some shortcomings in city government and some things that aren't working correctly, and one of those is that the assessor's office has undertaken great efforts to determine the legal owners of parcel 36 and

has in fact done so, and it seems that they are not sharing that information with other city agencies such as db i more most recently, the bbc's chief inspector was quoted saying. you know if there had been a uh, noted a violation of permitting requirements on the fence, as there has been very recently by mission greenway that altered the fence and created a door within the existing personal 36 defense abutting the 22nd street avenue. who would we send the notice of violation, too? well in fact, the assessor's office knows who you would send the that that notice too. and i think the board will be hearing tonight from the attorney that represents the owners of parcel 36 b. so there is this is private property is owned by owners of record who who are and can be who are very capable of pursuing their rights. so um, the second thing is that the

police need more guidance on how to handle real personal 36 in light of recent violence that has broken out against my client and other people. they they feel my understanding is they feel disempowered. they don't know how to handle this and without rehashing the issues on the fence appeal, it seems that the city is on its way to, um, forcing public access without any resources to assessed. so finally i want to just point out that the letter seems to imply that the mission greenway and monkey brains are on equal footing with respect to their legal rights to this parcel, and that's just simply not correct. it has been very well documented that that monkey brains predecessors the heinz ear's openly used parcel 36 in the same manner that monkey brains would like to use parcel 36 and in the same manner that is being obstructed now by mission greenway and, um, the law recognizes prescriptive easement

and you don't have to get judicial action to perfect those rights. okay thank you. thank you very much else in the room who would like to provide public comment? is there anyone else after him? if so, to keep it moving along. can you move forward? okay? please go ahead. you have three minutes. i i'm chris. me uh, long time friend of both alex and rudy. we went to college together. um just to continue some of what kelly had talked about in terms of providing some more color around the. ah community membership focused ethos of monkey brains. if you will, i would like to point out that they have been sponsored pride for over a decade recently sponsored carnival and continually support and donate to various community groups. they plan to continue this collaboration with community leaders in the area. there are also, uh, as kelly mentioned before. ah had offered

to collaborate with mission greenway on the green space area and try to reach some kind of compromise in that lot personal 36. the other thing i wanted to highlight is that, uh, alex and rudy have as far as i know that the only people who do this, uh have continued to hire ex felons and in an attempt to give them a second lease on life at that monkey brains, which i think is something very respectful, and i don't hear about a lot of people doing that. so, uh i take offense at the characterization of monkey brains as a tech road do she kind of affair there, literally the paragon of a successful san francisco small business that has reached success from literally zero and, uh, that concludes my comments. thank you. okay thank you. we will now move to public comment on zoom the phone number ending in 0246. please go ahead. do you

have three minutes? you need to unmute yourself. press star. six, please. go ahead. hello. uh i am jane martin on one of the friends of the mission. greenway. i lived two blocks from parcel. the letter is an entirely appropriate statement. i thank commissioner lindbergh for writing it and i asked the board to approve it. and the domain is worth mentioning in the letter. i understand that eminent domain is only a way to go somewhere and we need to decide where we're going, such as towards public park. but i just make conversation we should be having as the public discussion. what direction where we go with this land and eminent domain is the most likely vehicle supervisor. roman writes about trying to find the property owner 10 years ago that was worth trying now. it feels like a cover story. someone saying we have to find the owner may really be trying to find an excuse. the supervisor writes that the city can't use eminent domain at the end because we

can't find an owner. there is a very simple way out. the city can give public notice for sufficient period. uh the owners of lucky brains rights without apology about constructing a low concrete barrier on parcel. it's a foot above the ground. 17 ft. long reinforced concrete they're thinking is that the construction was legal because it didn't require a building permit. the construction was illegal because they don't own the property. they also write without apology about an altercation on the parcel. i was there at an apology. is owed by the owners of monkey brains for their actions. their aggression that evening. but the details of two weeks ago or next month on beside the point the letter. is about a problem that began 40 years ago when the railroad left the letter sparely states. where we are now. um bend it, please.

okay thank you. we will now hear from john wadsworth. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. can you hear me? yes we can. you have three minutes. this john wadsworth, thank you so much. i want to thank the members of the board, especially president suite for your pro activity, and i love the spirit of community building and commissioner limburg for drafting this letter. um so i live at 907 treat. um i own my house and property here, so i'm right in the middle of this every day. and i've been here for almost nine years. i've been here in san francisco for over 30 years. um i'm not allied with any side in this. really ah, but i've had lots of conversations with plenty of folks. and, um i

just want to say i respect all the parties involved, and i hope the heat is lowered on all this. uh quickly so we can get around to trying to resolve the situation. um i also want to mention i'm a lawyer, and i don't mention that as a threat, but rather because i you know, i have skills that i'd like to bring to the table. if you know if it helps. we obviously need some kind of process to resolve the situation before i address that, though there's one point i wanted to make or ask about which i haven't heard anything about which is, has there been any testing environmental testing of the of the soil on this property? and the reason i ask about it is because it was a railroad right away. uh railway of railroads tend to trains tend to throw off a lot of heavy metals and oil. so i just wonder

about that. um and it may impact the cost of what's going to happen on this property, not to mention potentially and not to be, you know, um, dramatic, but the safety of the children were playing right next door to it. so that's the question i have, um and you know i'll follow up on that if we can get a dialogue going and to that end, um you know, there are a couple of thoughts i've had on this one is that there that we establish a citizen advisory committee of some sort? um, which brings together different players to discuss the issues around the parcel and maybe overkill, but it is overseen by the city. i actually sat on this citizen advisory committee. for the development of mission bay. um so i thought it was a great experience at a great process. so that's a thought i had. but i also recognize that legal issues . um yeah. just 11 moment. um

the legal issues really might sort of obviate that, but the other thought i've had is, can we hammer out some kind of agreement to at least maintain status quo for the land while these issues are sorted out, and that's something i would be more than happy to get involved with . so again, local landowner, neighbor and interested party and i love the all the comments . i want to reach out to a couple of folks here. thank you for your time. thank you. we will now hear from laura campbell. please go ahead. hi thank you, laura campbell. i represent them as an attorney individuals who together with their family and what's known as 36. d the letter b, signifying one third of what? we've all been collectively addressing his parcel 36 have you heard from supervisor ronan's office earlier that there are many owners of personal be it sounds like they've been in touch with one. i represent several of them collectively working in concert. uh and this is the same family that donated a neighboring parcel to the city to be a park. and so i want to start by

apologizing that i haven't been able to submit him or full written statement here. i actually only received informal notice of this agenda. i don't be a council for monkey brains earlier. and i kind of think that lack of notices is sort of indicative of the trouble. we're all having navigating this because you know, it's really evolved from being about a permit that didn't impact my client to a letter addressing the entirety of the a parcel and addressing my clients, ownership rights, so i really appreciate that the intent of the board was to keep this letter really narrow and just kind of explanatory. here's what happened. but ultimately this letter is asking municipal agencies to intervene. and so if you're asking for intervention in these authorities, it's reporting to impact my clients, ownership rights and again. my clients have been recognized as owners by the assessor's office. so coming in late, you know, i gather that the board's hearing. there's a problem. they're trying to solve it and i really love that. they're trying to creatively proposed solutions for it and work a way to do that. but i do just as an advocate for my client's need to object to the letter, at least on jurisdictional grounds. uh you know, if there's an

ownership dispute, then that's what it is an ownership dispute . um i really like the dentist metaphor earlier. you know, someone comes to the dentist with a back problem and as public servants, the board is trying to get them to the right place. but i would posit that this letters are referral to the eye doctor for a back problem here. humbly ownership disputes should be adjudicated through the court system. and i say that not because i want this to escalate to the court system, but because it's proper and courts have their own mediation sessions. mandatory settlement conference is that they're fully equipped to handle ownership disputes. um, so you know again to conclude, sincerely appreciate the board looking for creative solutions. it's great to see you wanting to address the public and not just test the book. but you know for creative solutions they exist in proper venues for so solving these types of disputes to i'm in contact with proper representatives of neighboring parcels were working this out. uh and so, you know, as the owners, my clients are alarmed by this letter, and, uh, you know, they would. they would posit that it's missing some critical information, and it's something that we haven't really

been able to address, and we're kind of confused as to how to be addressing it before this particular board seconds. alright um and, you know, i guess maybe just since i have a little bit more time, probably cause i talked at the speed of lightning appreciate your patients. i'll just say that they've been representations kind of in this file and speaking that employment ownership isn't known, and there is ownership. it's my clients. the assessor's office has records identifying my clients as the owners so you know again as the owners, we would just humbly request that the letter b. not submitted. thank you. okay thank you. is there any further public comment, please raise your hand? i don't see any further public comment. so commissioners this matter submitted okay, um before we i want commissioner number to take over and complete the letter. we're not as you see fit and with collaboration from the other members, um, i want to make one statement. and it's a

first of all this letter is going not to commissioner ronan sorry to supervisor run ins office is going to the mayor of san francisco and includes supervisor runs office includes , uh, supervisor peskin, so it's not directed. ah solely completely and targeted at supervisor on his office just for clarification. it also i believe includes the department of the real estate. it also includes a couple other departments and i think the assessor to um and um so i just i just i want to make that clear. i think it answers one of the questions that was brought up in public comment, and furthermore, we did it guys. um, i'm going to compliment us. um, because in our hearing. nobody knew who the owner was. hey, we found him. her her. um we also

discovered and this is the whole purpose of why we're doing it. this is what i want to make clear to the public. um we had some challenges in a hearing. some of these things were out of our jurisdiction. some of these again face value. lois cannot common denominator, not and not predisposing any speaker that goes to that podium, uh, that they know their way around the city. they know their way around city departments, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. um and so are our goal with this letter, and i hope that we do send this letter because, um, it shows the public that they can be introduced into into pathways and showing a map to find resolution or at least get feedback on finding resolution to their issues, whether it be through supervisors of us whether it be through a city department or whatever another thing we discovered. it was

brought up that well. the assessor's department do it all the time. who was the owner? and we had. i don't know how many people said nobody knows who the owner is. well you know, we just like going in with a dog. if you're a hunter, i'm not. i don't like guns. i don't like hunting. it was like going in with the dog into the bush looking for that pheasant and fleshing out that pheasant so unfortunately, the peasant could get shot. not my favorite thing. uh but others like it. uh and lo and behold, we find out the assessor's office. they knew they knew about it all the time. boy it would have been nice if assessor's office had a pipeline to d v. i well now db. i knows if they face something like this already without even sending the letter. now we know that the db i available problem. maybe they ought to knock on the door of the assessor's office and say, hey, you got any idea on this? because you work in the city family. you allegedly worked as a collaborative group of departments under the mayor, this board of supervisors, etcetera, so as far as i'm

concerned, wow, we we've done a lot by even considering putting out this letter. so now what? this letter service that serves as is just a official notice that this body is concerned. this body is concerned for the public. this body is concerned with showing the public a map to how to get there to resolve. of it. and we're not into resolution business. but we're into this again. we're into the service business so and already without even saying the letter we got we got pretty far so i'm really happy so far, and i still recommend that we send the letter if mr sorry if commissioner lindbergh can move us forward and resolve satisfactory edits for all. thank you very much for letting me opine. michelle limburg. thank you, president swig. i am i first want to address a few things i heard in public comment of before i go into substantive issues, and the first one is

that supervisor bronin did indeed reach out to me personally after the hearing and as presidents week, said earlier , it would not have been appropriate for me to reach out to her in writing this letter. it's not what the not what our protocols are. and so i did want to acknowledge that um. this is substantive, but is i don't exactly know what to do with this and i look forward to hearing discussion on this. um one thing that greatly concerned me hearing from the representative. oh, and i'm sorry before i say this. my goal was never choose, criticize anyone, including supervisor ronan? i do think this was, you know. based on the response i received was taken personally, and it was not my intention in any way, shape or form to have this be personal against anyone. this was a business item exclusively. um back to what i

was saying. i was very concerned in the public comment that supervisor ronan's office apparently has taken the official position that, um, that they support one party and not the other. and so i do question the utility of, um having them intervene any further than they have already. um i do think that all of the remaining addresses still absolutely should be involved. i don't really know what to do about that. i'll be honest. um as far as the specific um. and it's sort of been suggested. i am perfectly amenable to what vice president lopez and commissioner trasvina suggested, which is on page two, omitting the final the last two sentences of paragraph three in the first two sentences of paragraph four in their entirety . i'm also amenable to editing the first sentence in. paragraph

three on page two, revealing potential shortcomings in the city government's response to long standing issues. i think that's appropriate and i think that would also address vice president lopez's concerns. um i hope it does. the last thing i want to say is we've heard we heard from the attorney for the owners of partial 36 b. if my memory serves me correct most of the parcel we were talking about, and it's not divided lee evenly into thirds. it was divided significantly not evenly into different chunk sizes of personal and that 36 a was almost all of it if my memory serves me correctly, it's been a couple of months. i apologize if that's not correct, but, um, 36 a, uh, should we actually did receive a report regarding the ownership of that at the hearing on april 20/6 that it was owned by a corporation that hasn't existed since the 19 thirties,

so we absolutely did hear that industry mony. on april 20/6 and i don't think the uh huh. i am the owners of parcels 36 b and c may be relevant to other things , but i don't think it's necessarily relevant to this letter in the scope of it as so with those suggestions. i turn it over to my fellow commissioners. thank you, commissioner limburg commissioner josephina. thank you, president swig and thank you again. commissioner lindbergh for your leadership on this letter. i appreciate your taking, uh, and accepting the suggested revisions, um that would that we had that we have offered. i also agree that this letter should should be sent. it's not. it's not a letter about supervisor ronan. it's about a matter that came before us about property in her district. and i heard the supervisor ronan's

representative, and it sounds like supervisor. ronan has a very strong view about about the about the appellant's. i think that's fine. that demonstrates some engagement in this ah ah and i also from from the letter i hope that in an abundance of transparency, the letter from supervisor on and as part of the part as part of the record references, and i believe supervisor ronan's representative alluded to her her offices and the previous supervisors involvement for over 10 years. and this issue has not gone away. there's various, very appropriate for the supervisor's office is very appropriate for all of the various departments to be involved in solving this matter. it is only escalated into into much more physical and dangerous. uh interactions since the time of our of our the permit, uh, being just decided.

before us so rather rather than rather than city agency, saying , we need to stay away or saying or rather than rather than this is a private matter. i believe it for public safety and other reasons. it is important that all of the various signatories on the on the letter be apprised of our view and our involvement and take and take further steps . finally i would say that that supervisors or their staffs contact us all the time. typically. but they contact me as i can't talk to you talk to our executive director or they come to the meeting. it's not a matter of are having to reach out to supervisors. supervisors say this is a matter of importance to our constituents or this has been a history of we've been involved with this from neighborhood complaints about it. this is a matter of that matter, and then they come here before us and they tell us so it would have been

extraordinarily helpful. for us to know the background and the involvement of the supervisor's office would be extraordinarily helpful for us to have been informed, uh, that the assessor's office had made determinations are or have some idea as to who the owners were. ah we're here. we're here. an owner. come by. come by by zoom to testify. that is that if that attorney knew that there was a permit on her clients property. and that that permit was being decided the appeal was was being decided here. and subsequent news coverage about the police incidents on that property. i would think that that people that people should be here. in any case, i we're we're not here to pick sides about who's the better? san franciscan who's who's got the upper hand on any of this all we're here to do the purpose of this letter. is to

make sure that the relevant city agencies in the legislative branch and the executive branch are able to have the benefit of our exposure to this case, uh and that they worked together. um and i will say that, uh, i believe we should send the letter and i support the changes that commissioner lundberg has made. thank you. thank you, commissioner lopez voice hmm. thank you, and i just wanted to echo those words of appreciation. from commissioner transition you once again for commissioner lindberg's initiative for commissioner lindberg's. ah, openness and flexibility in this public drafting session. to input both from ourselves and from the public. um i guess. ah! ah! one more technical. knit i think that's just kind of surfaced

with tonight's testimony. i think the reference to the owner of record ah, maybe we would change that to no known owner of record or something that's not known to the b o a um, because it sounds like we're not going to be in a position to confirm or deny the statements that were made tonight. and then i also wanted to emphasize my continued support for sending out the letter as amended. um you know, we're hearing testimony again. we're not in a position to confirm or deny that tonight with our police chief, but but to the sent the extent that the police has any doubt about how to respond to two calls at this location. if that's if that's true. then then, i think. you know, and it may be that for all we know all the address sees given the. the prominence of this item and the news. since

since our hearing, it may be that the addresses are all on it. like we now understand that the supervisor is on it. but but i still think it makes sense just to eliminate any any doubt. uh, to have this publicly, you know, on the record that that we're sending this to the city agencies because when it gets to the questions of public safety and public safety officers not knowing how to respond. two calls on the parcel. i think it's clear that it's not merely uh, you know, i said earlier that that litigation maybe the best path forward. i still think that uh, but but it's not exclusively a private matter for the courts. if, uh. if the parties for whatever reason choose not to go to court or ah, the delay. that decision for several months or years. uh i think in the in the intervening in media and midterm future it

would be good to have, uh, this on the radar of the relevant agencies and potentially uh, adding some clarity, at least for the for the public safety concerns, so of that's what i got. thank you, commissioner. commissioner eppler, please. thank you. um i wholly support the comments. my fellow commissioners and ah, in addition to having this letter b a either spur the city into continuing to assist with those unresolved matters that the city can help with in lieu of or in preparation of a several matter that's dispositive on the issue . also want to point out that this letter as we have amended it and refined it as it's the process from its first draft. yes completely neutral. this is not a letter saying that one side has better rights or better use or then the other side or

that there's a third or 1/4 or 1/5 party that should be involved because they're the actual owners of the parcel and need to put it to some sort of productive use, instead of allowing it to become what is increasingly a public nuisance. um so the purpose of this letter is to help. assist with the ultimate resolution of the parcel, the ultimate use of the parcel to determine what the appropriate uses are into. have that put resolution on what we had the foresight at the time to anticipate in which unfortunately, very quickly became, and even more contentious issue than it was when it first came before us. thank you and commissioner lindbergh. just one further edit . i realized one of the other time made made another sentence obsolete, which is in the fourth paragraph. it starts with it is clear to the b o a, um before

the italicized portion. um basically, i've ah! sorry. we've . agreed to eliminate both of the first sentence. the first two sentences of that paragraph and therefore the italicized portion should be amended to say we respectfully request that supervisor ronan's office, the mayor's office or both intervene now. intervene now as the boas decision so because the previous sentence has been eliminated. so the direct object was no longer there. um, so that's my further. input. julie. you do you have a record of all the comments that i think i need clarification on a few, um, so who commissioner member would maybe making the motion and yes, and i'll work with you on it afterwards. we don't talk about that you could.

it's all on the record. everything i wanted to say, is on the record for the record since we had a lot of comments. it's my understanding that, uh, we want to remove in the third paragraph on the second page removed the last two sentences. uh, in the first sentence in the third paragraph, we want to change district supervisors to city government's response. and then in the fourth paragraph, we want to remove the first two sentences and then the italicized sentence. we want to change it to say we respectfully request that supervisors of ronan's office or the mayor's officer, both intervene now. then move on from that? yes and then add an s to reckon parks department on the third page and i guess i was just slightly unclear with vice president lopez amendment. he wanted to eliminate the reference or the statement, which said, there's no known owner of record and can you specify where i mean because

at the bottom of page two, it says ambiguous status of parcel 36. can you just clarify, or i mean, we don't know. frankly laura campbell, we have. we're just taking her word for it. we haven't heard from the assessor's office. so it's in paragraph for the begins first. like. three or four lines down with no no owner of record. okay on the of which page second page. page what would it address your concern to say of personal 36? a. because that one doesn't have an owner of record and we have that on in our record. i mean, that would be confusing. i feel like i mean, so do you want to make all references to parcel 36 parcel 36, a. no we change it to say it appears that the

ownership status is unknown. although that hasn't been conclusively determined with writing this letter under the assumption that it is unknown. something like that? yeah, confirmed. under a record with an unconfirmed owner or unconfirmed owners of record. yeah. but that works for me. mhm. there's also a statement in the first paragraph, right? um and i have a suggested at it if i may. um these property popularly known as parcels, 36 is in a regularly shaped former railroad right away for which the ownership records are incomplete and include a corporation that dissolved in the 19 thirties. that sounds great. you get that julie. got that. not going to repeat everything, i think, um commissioner trasvina. yeah yeah

. yeah. thank you. for all those edits. i only have one. different view, and that is on the on page two. on paragraph four. or we have changed it to say. um. we respectfully request supervisor romans and the mayor's office to intervene. i were writing to everybody. i think i think we want everyone to intervene, including the assessor's office and the real estate people. so i would just say we respectfully request that your offices intervene now and not single out the mayor or or the supervisor would respond to that by saying. it does say that on page three and the purpose of the two requests was slightly different between the first section directed towards supervisor ronin and the mayor and the second section directed towards all the other city departments. the bottom of the

first paragraph on page three does say that as well. um i'm not. i'm not. sure that it's the consensus. that we believe the issues should be. mediated by supervisor ronan. the office. the mayor's officer, both but we do agree that the matter should be resolved. i'm i've, uh it's a it's a fair point that has been made. that in a sense, we are reviving the status of the, uh of the appellant. that matter is now resolved. as to the as and we may be giving them greater standing than then. uh we intend

by saying we want them to be part of the mediation. so, um. i would respond. it's not really about legal standing in this. it's the fact that other commissioners have talked about that. this is an issue of public concern and public safety. um that has increased in hostility , and that's the issue in my eyes. at least that needs to be resolved. um with the assistance of the city departments and the elected officials, so as long as that i would i would agree with you that the sentence means mediating the dispute. and the fact that it's between the neighborhood group and the adjacent property owners doesn't limit the parties to any kind of mediation. yes i mean, i don't think it would have anyway, but i'm fine amending that slightly if it would. julie my request was to just say, uh. were we

respectfully request your offices intervene now. isn't that what it says? but i think he wanted to put in supervisor ronan and the mayor's office interview now and i was saying everybody needs to intervene. hmm you julia. i got a message from as i just got a message that zoom might be cut off at seven. the sf tv said they're going to switch the internet at seven. so if you won't want to keep going, we'll have to recess until it switches back to another. sorry we just don't want to stand in the way of anything. i will. i will withdraw my request. just saying if we're gonna if you're gonna go past seven, just let me know. and i think we got the interests of resolving this in time. i will withdraw my request and not say anything else. okay so we have a president suite. you wanted to add something, okay? no, i'm not going to add anything. uh other than to say, um thank you to the members of

the board of appeals. thank you for just going through a very good processes with of civility and collaboration to reach an agreement on this letter, and i hope the example that civility and collaboration will cross over to the participants in this dispute. and in their future behavior. i would like to call for motion from commissioner limburg at this point given that we all understand the letter and you're going to fix it up with julie afterwards anyway. so, julie, can you call the i will. in one second. i wanted to address one thing real fast, which was commissioner apples, comment about recreation and parks. um that has been resolved . they have recently actually changed all of their verb ian's to recreation and parks. it used to be recreation and park in it no longer is have they changed the city charter yet? i can't answer that question. i don't think they have informally they

refer to themselves as recreation and parks will take that under advisement and discuss it can figure that out. i don't think that's two substantive can resolve that after it's an s. i moved to adopt the letter as amended. has amended here in the hearing tonight. okay uh, on commissioner lindbergh's motion to adopt the letter as amended, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina grappler. i. president swig. okay, so that motion carries five here in the letter has been adopted. thank you all for attending this evening. thank you. very much meeting is adjourned. thank you. hmm.