i think we're ready. okay good evening and welcome to the october 25th, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight and he is joined by vice president jose lopez. commissioner john commissioner alex lundberg and commissioner j.r. eppler. also present is deputy city attorney jen huber, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls. is the board's legal assistant, al conway. and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. tina tam, the deputy zoning administrator, sitting up front representing the planning department, as well as matthew green, deputy director, inspection services with the department of building inspection. the board meeting

guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants permanent holders and department respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these 7 or 3 minute periods as members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal time may be limited to two minutes of the agenda is long, or if there are a large number of speakers. mr. long, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30s before your time is up. four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination, or to grant a rehearing or jurisdiction request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearings schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at icgov.org. org now public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board as govtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live,

and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda, as govtv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on tv, go to govtv cable channel 78. please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sf.org. forward slash voa now public comment can be provided in three ways one in person two via zoom, please go to our website and click on the zoom link under hearings three by telephone call 1669 906,008 33 and enter webinar id 8229589 6911. and again sf govtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you're watching the live stream or broadcast to block your phone number when calling in first dial star six seven then the phone number listen for the public comment portion of your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the 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 six to unmute yourself if you will have 2 to 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning. 30s before your time is up, please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore, it is very important that people calling in, reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to alec longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to board of appeals at .org. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their

right 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 are 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? okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so as a preliminary matter, president swig would like to address the parties for item number seven. this is appeal number 23 042 at 1228. funston avenue. but before he does, commissioner trevino would like to make a disclosure. thank you. on item number seven, i would like to recuse myself while my recusal does not not on any of the legal legally established grounds personal relationship with one of the appellants as well as other

members associated with the matter. for i feel it is appropriate that in an abundance of caution and an appearance of fairness for me to recuse myself . okay, thank you. and so we do need commissioner, we do need to have a vote on this recusal. i don't believe we do. yes that's the direction from the city attorney's office. we are required to have a vote. we've never had it before. so if you insist, we might as well. so is the first. is there any public comment on this recusal, please raise your hand. i don't see any . so we would need a motion to recuse. i'm motion to allow commissioner trasvina to recuse himself. okay. on the basis of a personal relationship, on the basis of his ability to be entirely fair and in an abundance of caution. mr. president, if i may or if you

would state what i it's not it's not an inability to be fair. it's an abundance of caution. abundance of caution to the appearance of fairness. thank you very much. okay. so on president swig's motion, vice president lopez high commissioner trevino high commissioner lundberg. i commissioner epler. aye. so that motion carries 5 to 0. thank you. thank you. we'll let you know when the when we're finished. okay so president swig you, you would like to address the parties for item seven. so on item seven, i read the brief and it reminded me of, of it was like a horrors of christmas past. and a christmas past was only a couple of weeks ago when we heard a tree case that is still under discussion. but where we went through an entire hearing and we realized, man, we

are just full of holes here and there are things missing and there's testimony from the department that's missing. there were holes and this is not to criticize the departments or criticize the appellants in those cases. it just happened. and we went through a two hour hearing and came up with absolutely nothing because we realized we didn't have the materials in a full enough fashion to enable us to make a just decision for both for either party. in that case. and we motion to postpone having the hearing. so we could get all the data in front of us so that we could do our jobs properly. and there we, i, when i was reading items seven brief there, there was again holes on the appellant

side, holes, holes on the planning department side. so i just had made a couple of notes because i'm, i'm going to recommend that we have a continuance on this and because the appellant argues that the planning commission improperly imposed conditions on the permit. but the appellants material do not include the planning commission's decision. 822 that recites those conditions and the commission's decision. so basically we're in hearsay land and instead the appellant submitted only the staff report prepared in advance of the planning commission's hearing and with limiting limited excerpts of that of that hearing. secondly, the appellant's main argument is the planning is a planning imposition of conditions from from the prior permit violates the housing accountability act. however we don't have we didn't

get a brief from the planning department, which is problematic as we didn't get a couple of weeks ago. a brief from the bureau of urban forestry, which was problematic and therefore for the planning department, couldn't didn't explain their position on the housing accountability act and i will tell you, i don't know the housing accountability act verbatim. and i need that's exactly what a commissioner needs to provide the information on which to make a decision. so therefore, i came. i'm going to suggest to this commission that we continue the item so the record can be supplemented with the dra 822, which is the discretionary review action memo 822 and, and a brief from the planning department for this case which answers the following questions does the housing accountability act apply to this

case? if so, is the planning commission's imposition of these conditions consistent with the housing accountability act? and why? so that's rather than spending the commission's time and the public's time for an hour and a half or two to discuss this thing in a vacuum. that's why i'm suggesting that the continuance and i'd like to give with the commission's permission, three minutes to both parties to address the board on whether they are not whether or not either party agrees or disagrees with this continuance. and then we can discuss it in front of everybody to make a decision on the continuance. so with that, i'm okay. thank you. we'll hear from the planning department first. good evening, president swig. vice president lopez, members of the board. i'm tina tam, deputy

zoning administrator for. thank you, president swig for your thoughtful questions and consideration. i do appreciate how important it is for all of you to have the relevant facts to make your decision on while this property does have a very long permit history, i believe that the facts surrounding this case are very straightforward and you will have all the information that you need to make your decision tonight at my recommendation is that you don't continue this item for several reasons. one, i intend to provide you with a background and timeline for this permit. two, i intend to address the issues brought up by the appellants regarding the planning commission's prior actions include whether the housing accountability act applies to this project. three this property has been the subject of code enforcement actions since 2015, so a continuance would only delay

abatement out of this confirmed violation. and for assessment of administrative penalties have been accruing on this property. therefore, action by this board would only help the owners and the department move forward in resolving any enforcement issues, remain on the property. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. number one question is, and you've heard you've heard this feedback before from this commission for a long time, if we don't have a we don't have a brief in advance, we can't do our homework if we don't have a brief in advance. that means the appellant doesn't have a brief in advance. or if it was the appellant, that means the department doesn't have a brief in advance and therefore we are in extreme disability to do our our homework. in advance of this hearing. and so we're not hearing it for the first time living in person, which for me places me at a significant disadvantage. i cannot speak for the rest of the commission so simply simply because this will

place the appellant at a distinct disadvantage, because the appellant does not know your position on this case, and also because we will be placed us on the commission will be placed as a significant disadvantage. do you really do you really think that it is fair for you to deny the opportunity for a continuance for all the reasons i'm not arguing with your reasons. i'm just arguing with you. if you would have had a brief submitted to us in the first place, we could have done our homework and move forward. but you didn't. and now we haven't been able to do our homework. and so i'm hesitant to move forward. can you give me some feedback on that, please? absolutely thank you for those comments. we generally don't provide briefs on permits, but if the board is interested in seeing a brief on the department, we can certainly provide one. whether it's for this case or any case down the road. but that's our general

practice. we haven't been providing these briefs to you. you haven't seen much from us when it relates to a permit, other types of appeals like a variance or a letter of determination, we would oftentimes do provide one, but not for permits. and for tonight's hearing, i intend to represent the planning commission in in their action. so it's not going to be any sort of new information for the appellants. the appellants have heard all the comments and have seen the decision by the planning commission. so i'm not here to surprise anybody. i'm here to just basically reiterate what the planning commission has have said in their action memo. i'll walk you through what those action memos entail and go over whatever questions you may have still on the on the permit. so not to be argumentative and i don't mean to be, but i want to get the facts out there. you know, as i as i said, the

planning commission's decision on was nowhere to has been nowhere to be found in front of my eyes or the commission's eyes. and so that would that would place the planning commission in in a position of hearsay based on what you're going to tell us and what the appellant is going to tell us, does that does that make you feel comfortable? let me let me answer the second question. go to the second question. i have no clue because it hasn't been explained to me and i haven't been able to review it. what the account, the substance of the housing accountability act, whether it be the entire detailed act or a reasonable summary of that act going into given that that that seems to be the primary discussion from the appellant and therefore should be a primary decision or discussion of yours, do you really want us to go in blind on this? that's entirely up to you.

that's your call. i'm here to tell you that i do intend to respond to the issues brought up, including the housing accountability act, whether it's applicable for this case or not. i'm more than happy to go over that in detail. if you decide to go ahead and have the item continue to be heard tonight. the action memos were sent to the project team or applicant. they have copies of that. i have copies with me. i can certainly share with you. i do intend to walk you through the action memo tonight. okay. thank thank you very much. and obviously, it's not my decision. it's a shared decision amongst the commission. but i wanted to share my discomfort with that. the appellant wanted, well, should we have the department of building inspection? okay. when would you like to know? okay thank you. we'll hear from the appellant then. thank you, mr. patterson. thank you, president

swig and commissioners ryan patterson for the appellants. yes, we don't object to a short continuance, ideally short because we would like to see a speedy resolution to this, to correct one statement. the penalties have been paused due to the appellants efforts at compliance and as well, we don't object to a continuance. we do object to the department's lack of a brief. that makes it very hard for us to respond to the arguments if we don't know in advance what they're going to be in court. they call this sandbagging and the parties arguments are often taken as waived when they fail to raise them. in the briefing. it certainly puts us at a disadvantage in many cases, it wouldn't matter as much, but this one is pretty technical and on the basis of state law. so the short verbal explanation of a position at the planning commission hearing has made it

hard for us to respond to it because it doesn't really make sense in our view, and i would love to see it written out and explained so we can respond and i think that's about it. if it's possible to have it be a short continuance, we're happy to provide a copy of the housing accountability act. if you would like to see the plain black letter law as well as a copy of the dra memo and anything else the board would like. thank you and happy to answer any questions. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. there's nobody in the room and i don't see anybody on zoom. so commissioner, is. you want to start because i you know, my thoughts. sure. i'll go. i agree with the short continuance. i think given on. well i think

that the planning's um. mo with respect to not briefing permit matters is generally fair. but in this instance s given the close connection to the commission's memo to the hra, i think it makes more sense to distinguish in this situation. so i tend to agree that that a short continuance is appropriate. so i would be in support of that. commissioner lundberg, thank you. i actually come out a little different on this for a few reasons. number one, i think miss tam's rationale for not continuing is very strong. i think her rationale is sound. and i think all of the reasons she cited are good reasons to hear it tonight. and i think there's several

other pieces to this. number one, regarding the housing accountability act, as we've dealt with several times in the past, in other appeals, we are not allowed to interpret state law. that is not within our purview. and that is something we've dealt with repeatedly. and i don't think it's honestly, i just don't see its role in in further briefing past what what the appellants have already provided in addition to what miss tam would testify to as as to tonight and then i want to also point out that something mr. patterson said, which is that a, he is correct when n arguments are waived, when not brought up in briefings. and i would apply that to the current case as well in that because the gr disin action was not included in the briefing that we should not consider that argument. and

i think continuing this matter would actually not solve that issue at all because although we would get the decision potentially from a brief by planning, it's still not included in the appellant's briefing, which i will note was done by an attorney not an unrepresented party. and i you know, if one of their arguments in the brief is that we that the planning commission wrongly decided that the discretionary review and then did not include the discretion review for our consideration, it's my opinion that we should just not consider that argument as part of the overall argument of this. and a continuance would not solve that problem because the appellant would not have the opportunity to submit another brief if we if we issued a continue ince unless we also did that. but i honestly don't think that would be fair because as vice president lopez said, planning typically does

not submit briefs on on permit matters and so for that reason i would be okay hearing this matter tonight. i don't think anybody is really prejudice. not necessarily. i do think we're prejudiced for not having seen the decision for sure, but because of that, i just wouldn't consider that as part of the argument. thank you. i'm i'm on the fence on this one as well. generally more information and information prior is useful and so i don't think anyone's prejudice by us getting something in writing from the department even though that is not their their standard practice on these matters that said, i also be happy to just go through with this tonight given given what commissioner lundberg said. and, you know, the general way that we approach these these

types of cases, i don't think that there's a lot that's going to be surprising to any of the parties in the argumentation. so i i'm thinking on this one still. okay my feelings won't be hurt if i'm overruled on my direction. so let's just take a vote. okay. so the dates we have available are december 6th or december 13th. would that work for the appellants. okay, i'll make okay, we'll is that fine with planning the 13th? okay and so we have a motion from president swig to continue this item to december. 13th for so that the parties can provide a copy of the discretionary review memo. 822 and so that the

planning department can provide a brief regarding the applicability of the housing accountability act and how the conditions let me see. i did have some language somewhere, but basically how the conditions apply to the how it applies to the current condition is and also a copy of the. correct. yes. so on that motion, vice president lopez. i uh. commissioner lundberg. nay commissioner eppler, i. okay, so that motion carries and this matter is continued to december 13th. uh thank you. okay, so we are now moving. let's get commissioner trevino back. i'll get him. okay. thank you.

is the briefing schedule the third thursday prior? yes yes, i'll reach out. she's right there. so the thursday prior. and also email the language, miss tam, of what we're looking for. thank you. welcome back. thank you. okay, so we are now on on 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. is there any member of the board, a member of the public who wishes to speak on item, not on tonight's agenda? please raise your hand. i don't see anybody on zoom, so we will move to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. first, president swig . oh, i'm sorry, i didn't even see that he was gone. so we can

wait. he snuck out of here. okay so we are on item number two. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners. anybody have anything for tonight other than the fact the giants have a great new field manager? mr. melvin. okay okay. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any. so we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion of possible adoption of the minutes of the october 11th, 2023 meeting. i move to adopt the october 11th, 2020 three minutes. okay is there any public comment on that motion, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment.

so on that motion, vice president lopez. uh, commissioner lundberg, i. commissioner epler. hi, president swig. i that motion carries 5 to 0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number four. this is a rehearing request for appeal number 20 3-030. subject property at 144 25th avenue. bruce and deborah mcleod, the appellants are requesting a rehearing of appeal number 20 3-030, which was decided on september 27th, 2023. at that time, upon a motion by vice president lopez, the board voted 5 to 0 to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans dated nine 2723, which were submitted by the permit holder as exhibit g to his one page statement with the requirement that the permit holder add the structural detail for the ten foot fence. the motion was made on the basis that the revised plans are code compliant and take into account the privacy concerns of the appellants. the permit holder is frank bellizzi the permit

description is the project generally consists of replacement of the existing first floor deck and expanding the deck to the rear yard setback line addition of a roof deck above the second bedroom office floor access via four new doors from the third floor office. this is permit number 2023 0202 1229 and we will hear from the requester. first, welcome, mr. mcleod. do you have three minutes? can you elaborate on the standard, please, for a decision, the standard for a rehearing request is their manifest injustice or is there new evidence that would have changed the outcome of the hearing? thank you. okay please go ahead. mr. mcleod. thank you. at the september 27th hearing, andrew perry was asked by the board whether the macleods had reached out to the planning commission. we knew that subject had been covered in our one page report that requested by president swig. so we became suspicious that once again, the

executive director had not transferred our filing to the board. on october 4th, we signed on to the board packet for the september 27 hearing and our suspicions were confirmed. our one page status report was not in the board's packet. instead, there was a message in all capital letters that the state mint submitted by appellant was rejected for being untimely. but our filing was not untimely. our one page status report was sent on at 4:29 p.m, september 21st, and we immediately received the executive director's automatic reply also at 429. so we met the 430 deadline. we next discovered that after our request for rehearing was filed on october 10th, someone tampered with the historic record of the board's packets. on october 5th, we had printed to an adobe acrobat file the complete board packet for the september 27 meeting. it consisted of 84 pages. the

second page of which was the rejection statement in preparation for this hearing, we again printed the board packet for september 27th. this time the board. the board, the document property is show 83 daca comments one less than before with the metadata showing that the file had been modified on october 16th, missing is the rejection statement that had been the second page thus, after we filed our current brief, the historical record was tampered with. our one page status report is now found as the last page of the board's packet for this hearing. but of course, including it now is too late because the damage has already been done. note that mr. perry did not qualify his remarks, such as by stating to the best of my knowledge. instead, he stated to my knowledge the macleods have not reached out to planning at all. that was an emphatic representation that he knew we had not reached out to planning when the opposite was

true. indeed, virtually everyone appearing at the september 27th hearing except you commissioners, had received our one page status report and knew that we had met with corey teague. only you had no idea that it was we who first reached out to him to develop the new design. our brief lays out compelling evidence that you were swayed by mr. perry's false testimony, which was abetted by the executive director. wrongful withholding of our one page status report. these facts clearly meet the standard standards for rehearing. such actions by the city employees. also amount to due process. thank you. that's a failure of due process by the city. thank you. we have a question from president swig. sure i want to make sure that the issue here is whether you had your fair day in court and that all the

information that you wanted to get heard was heard. i was very aggressive with you. and in my line of questioning to ask you, did you get everything on the table that you wanted to get on the table last week? and was there any new information that was that you wanted to communicate to us? i'm paraphrasing. is there any new information related to this case that that we didn't hear from the from the previous hearing? absolutely absolutely. you heard why and why when? when? because i reviewed the tapes right. we can do that. it's a wonderful thing to technology and. to my view and because i was a source, i was pretty aggressive in asking whether you had anything more or any more anything more

factual to share with us in this case. and. you seem to have gotten everything that you needed to say on on the table. so. so that would be my assumption at that point that you you had your day in court and you got you were you were asked, do you have any more information to share? and no, there wasn't. so that so what is the new information that you would like to share with us tonight that would that would justify a rehearing other than in what you just shared with us now, in my experience, my day in court includes an opportunity to reply under the board's rules, i could not reply. i went into the hearing thinking that what we were going to be talking about was what you were talking about out back at our first hearing and that is trying to work out a

design solutions that work for everybody. and so my arguments were pitched to that. i did not consider it an opportune city to attack the belize's about them not cooperating with us, which they never did. we they never once let us get up on a ladder and look at at back in the in the in the at the sight line of their their plans to see see what the penetration was. we needed to do that at dusk because of our tree that blocks it this time of year or earlier this year. and we needed we needed that permission. they would never give it to us. so there were lots of things that i could have talked about, but i didn't think that was what the goal was at that that hearing. well, then frank got up and he gives us rapid fire talk back

saying that we weren't cooperative and we didn't do things and we were trying to abscond with their deck and so forth. i had no opportunity to respond. so all of that has come up since the last hearing. and therefore, it i, i have all sorts of things that i think i was deprived of. but one of the biggest things i was deprived of is that this idea that we had failed to reach out. well, no, but that for sure. but also that we had missed filing requirements. now i do. i see in frank's brief that they finally discovered why my first filing didn't work. it was because there was a period at the end of the hyperlink. but but you're not supposed to put a period next to hyperlinks. what i did for the mailing address was i

copied the hyperlink link, pasted it into my document and sent it off. well it carried because the hyperlink had that period in it right next to it, which is almost impossible to see. it didn't work every website i've ever been on, if they've got a hyperlink, it's isolated from any punctuation, so that doesn't happen. so that's what happened. the first time. now that all became muted because frank agreed that that to file my brief as as part of his brief. so it didn't come up again until the last hearing when frank was also happy to remind the court that this was happening again, that that this was the second time i had not filed something timely, which it

wasn't, as far as i'm concerned in terms. and one other thing i want to say is nobody suffered any prejudice from that. frank got the email on time. he wasn't affected by the period at the end of the of the hyperlink and it wasn't going to go out to the board board for another week until frank had had submitted his thing. so there was no prejudice at all. but yet julie was inflexible about no, you can't file a brief. so. so in any event, we have tried, we have submitted, done everything we can to try to work with them, not not in sending emails back and forth via email saying we sincerely want to settle with you. and so forth. but in trying to develop plan things that would be better for them as well

as for us because we know that's the only thing that's going to work. i think. and this is i think what we're doing is rehearing the case that we heard two weeks ago and so i'd like to i think you've satisfied actually answered my question, if i may say just one more thing. that's why i realized i can't relitigate that sort of thing. but i have got due process violation here. i've got a city employee who testified falsely about us, not reaching out to the planning commission when he had an email from me, sent just a week before that sent him the email that said corey teague. we met with corey teague and we found this out and we're hoping to get to a resolution and i've got this document more recently than

that. julie reject it for being untimely. and it was timely. we we've got it not only did we send it timely but we got back the out of office notice location timely within the window. now how does that happen? how can you reject something as being untimely when it's right there in your emails? there's something going on here that we don't really understand, but thank you very much. we think we've got to due process. pass it to commissioner lehmberg . thank you, president zweig. my question is simple regarding the out of office notification that you've mentioned a few times, why was that not included in the briefing for this rehearing request, if that's the basis? is that you received it? i did not see this yet. that out of office

responder in the briefing. let me just look at the briefing real quickly. you do have the timestamp on on the one page submission. i do. and i mean, i'm pretty sure i understand the reason why it was rejected, but but my question is just that i don't think julie's dispute eating that fact that that she sent a she she our email generated automatically basically a reply from her. i'm happy to clarify. commissioner lundberg so on the day in question, the 21st of september, there, one page statement was due at 430 on that day. they sent three separate emails, one at 429, one at 505, and one at 10:00 at night. i did not see the 429 email, so it was part of a former email chain. i saw the

505 email. i was out of the office. so on friday morning i looked at my emails and i saw the 505 email, which included an attachment that was entitled settlement offer and brief. i thought that was his submission at 505. so i respond to that email and i said that you're late and it exceeds the page limit. so it was a misunderstanding on my part and i acknowledged that and i apologize. there was no bad intent. mr. mcleod and but the good news is that the written decision hasn't been issued and that email has been provided to you. so if you think that it would change the outcome, this is the opportunity. so okay, thank you. i'll pass it to commissioner trevino. thank you. thank you. i can you state with some specificity why what the impact is of our not

notrillioneceiving that one page document. it. clarifies exactly what president swig asked very at the very end. did we reach out to planning? and it's all filled out there that we met with corey teague. we talked with him about alternative plans, putting affairs at the east end. would we need to get a variance rally? the neighbors to get a variance? he said, oh no, you don't need a variance. you can have this, whatever the code is that allows an open non closed structure to be across the setback. okay, so is it fair to say that it's your view that if we had that email, it would put you in a more cooperative light? or is there something substantive in in i'm sorry, in that document that would make

the make it clear your view of the legality or the appropriateness of the permit holders plans? we felt a chill. i put this in my brief, a chill in the room. um, when you ask the question often of whether you're of the planning department representative of whether there we had reached out to the planning commission and he said to my knowledge the macleods have not reached out to planning at all. and at that point the attitude in the room we could, we could just feel it change, you know, it was like, what you haven't reached out to planning and you know, and here you are bothering us again. okay, so, so if i could then your position today is that the

mishap with that document, coupled with the question that you just described and puts you in a you feel in an unfavorable light rather than an deprived us of any information about the actual plans of the permit holder it both both. i think because you were okay. so how does it how does it affect the your your position on as to the permit holders plans you the we are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. once that came out, no questions were asked of us not a single question the board had made up its mind. we looked like the ultimate flakes. we had not met

filing deadlines, which in fact we had made or one of which we didn't make because they the hyperlink put a period right next to it. we look like we were flakes. frank had given this big speech. we weren't entitled to rip. but many, many things in that speech were false. and we never understood that the purpose of the meeting was to come in and to discern neighbor about not cooperating. we thought the purpose of the meeting was to try to get a the planning committee commission involved in looking at alternative designs. how can you make a decision? okay as to the impact of the mishap on the document. so thank you. okay. president swig, do you have anything further? i do not. sorry, i didn't say. okay. thank

you. you can be seated. mr. macleod. and we'll now hear from the permit holder. good evening, commissioners. the mcleod's brief unequivocally fails to meet the required burden so as to warrant a new hearing. they don't show any material facts or circumstances that have arisen where such facts or circumstance cases, if known at the time, could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. the reason they don't is because they can't. there are no new material facts to present it. they were also afforded full due process and given more than ample opportunity to be heard before a fair and impartial body. they had two full hearings lasting almost three hours to present their case, and over three months to reach a compromise solution. yet they remain unwilling to accept this commission's unanimous verdict throughout their appeal, the one consistent theme the mcleod's events is a belief that the rules, both pertaining to this commission's process and to the

underlying planning and building codes somehow don't apply to them. instead, they seek to contort the facts and blame others rather than take responsibility for their own failures. the mcleod's advanced three principal agreed amounts, none of which meet the standard for justifying a new hearing. first, that they should have been excused for filing their july brief after the deadline, even though the transmittal mistake was solely theirs. and we attached it to our brief second that their eight sentence email statement regarding the status of our negotiations, which had no material information in it, was not provided to the commission in advance of the hearing and nor were their exhibits because they were transmitted after the deadline. and lastly, that andrew perry's not being aware that they had met with corey teague somehow poisoned the well and turned the commission against them. notwithstanding that the mcleod's had every opportunity to make that point in their oral testimony, as well as share any exhibit or points they believe were material. the simple fact is there is nothing material they can point to that wasn't covered in the hearing or which could somehow provide the basis for their claim that they were deprived of due process or somehow suffered a manifest

injustice. rather than accepting their appeal was fairly heard and denied. they take the view that the rules and due process available to residents of san francisco don't apply to them, that they have the right to design their neighbor's deck and to insist on changes for which they are not entitled. if there's any injustice manifest here, it's the mcleod's continued imposition on this commission's time and city resources and the further delay of our properly permitted plans. the mcleod's have caused over a four month delay and cost us tens of thousands of dollars in architect engineering and other related fees. from the beginning, we followed the building and planning guidelines have heeded every instruction from this commission and have acted in good faith. to be fair and reasonable, neighborliness an important aspect that this commission has emphasized has been trampled upon by the mcleod's that said, alison and i will continue to strive to be good neighbors willing to listen to their reasonable requests. simple we put the mcleod's have not fulfilled their burden to warrant a new hearing. we respectfully ask that their request be denied and this

matter closed so we can finally move forward with our permitted project. and on a final note, we would like to sincerely thank the commission for the considerable time it's taken in this appeal. thank you. okay. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time, so you can be seated. we'll now hear from the planning department. thank you, mr. delisi. you can be seated. tina tam for the planning department at the september 27th hearing, my colleague andrew perry attended and represented the planning department. and during the question and answer portion of the hearing, commissioner trasvina asked mr. perry whether the appellants had any contact with the planning department. as you may recall, mr. perry answered, quote, to my knowledge, the mcleods have not reached out to the planning department at the time he was questioned, mr. perry had no knowledge that the mcleods had reached out to the zoning administrator, corey teague. i

did speak with mr. teague this week. mr. teague had been out of the office for the past five weeks and he confirmed that he did indeed meet with the mcleods . according to mr. teague, the mcleods presented a design alternative to him and he reviewed it for compliance with the building code. mr. teague did not indicate to the mcleods if he preferred one design over the other, or as the department supported both the original and the revised. what happened during the q&a portion was obviously regrettable, as it reflected a miscommunication between mr. perry and the zoning administrator. however, i do believe that even if the board had this correct information, then it wouldn't have changed the substance of the permit or what was proposed for the permit . the board agreed with the planning department that the permit complied with the planning code and the revised plans were were an improvement to the appellant's property in

that the stairs and landing will be located further away from the shared property line, as stated by commissioner eppler, who was the maker of the motion, the permit was properly issued. therefore, the planning department asked that the board deny the rehearing request on the basis that there is no manifest injustice, as there is no new information or different facts or circumstances where if such facts and circumstances were known at the time of the september 27th hearing would have affected the board's decision to issue the permit. that concludes my report. happy to answer any questions. thank you. i don't see any questions, so we'll hear nothing from. okay. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i'll see if there's anybody on zoom. i don't see anybody. so, commissioners, this matters submitted. so commissioner eppler, since you made the motion give you the opportunity to cast the first opinion? oh, thank you for that. it is a and fortunate set of

circumstances and mishaps that get us to this situation with regards to multiple submittals, nested email planning department miscommunication. and that's that's not great because it makes the outcome suspect but that doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome isn't correct because the nature of the information that we are missing is very limited. i think that we all understood that there was communication going on, whether or not to the planning department is almost immaterial because there were competing designs and we were aware of those and those competing designs came with the design from the permit holder that was ultimately submitted to us. and we looked at that permit holders design aware that there were other negotiations about design going on and said that that was fine, that it satisfied the privacy issue and that the permit could be issued. so while

all this cloud of mishap is very unfortunate, it i don't think it creates a manifest injustice. and i don't think there are any facts in the submittal that would have if we had known them at the time, changed our decision. commissioner lundberg, thank you. i have a couple of things to add. number one, while i didn't specifically ask miss rosenberg why, why this briefing was was not accepted, i'm glad she answered the question because i completely accidentally found a completely independent reason for why the september 21st brief was was denied. that, i thought, was why it was denied in the first place, which was that all of the email addresses were not copied on on that september 21st email, which would have been a completely independent, ardent reason from the time. to not

except for miss rosenberg to not accept the brief and the other thing i want to add is, is that the basis for the appellant argument here is due process violations. and i did want to note that even if everything and i'm not saying this is the case, but even if everything that the planning department said was a complete and total lie, which again, i don't think was the case. but even if it was, that is not a due process violation. that's perjury, perhaps, but not a due process violation. an and that simply is the case. so for those reasons, i would not be supportive of the rehearing request. mr. chair. yeah. thank thank you, president swig. and i thank the parties for their presentation actions today. i don't believe that had we

received that that document that that it would have made a difference, at least in my vote. and i think that's important as we assess this under our rehearing standards whether there's new or different new or different material facts or whether manifest injustice has occurred. i have in the past in this case and others described some concerns that i have, which unfortunately, are rearing their heads again in the matter tonight. one is the issue of whether the planning department considers the individual well, who has the privacy concern in special and unusual privacy concerns? they're not at the table. that, to me is a concern of the process. second is length of briefs. i understand that one of the briefs was was rejected because it was too long and yet

we have very long we have long briefs, but they're just attachments. and i think that is that is an issue that needs some some clarity because people can get can get around the page limitation just by calling something an attachment or an exhibit. and finally, i, i am concerned that i did not hear or see in the record that the opportunity conveyed to the appellant regarding the ability to seek leave, to amend, to file a late brief. and i and as i understand from our executive director about the process that we follow, i have some concerns about that that but again, i don't believe that any of these things that i've outlined have had an effect on the case or arise right. as to the level of preventing and manifest injustice. and i will vote to against rehearing this matter. commissioner lopez. thank you,

president swig, and thank you to the parties for your presentations. i would echo that the. procedural issue vis a vis our board is regrettable. i would also dispute you know, the characterization of mr. perry's comments as a lie. i, i think that the planning department is not the blob. and everybody doesn't always have perfect information about who speaks to who and when. but i do think the appellant for voicing those issues because as we all know,

nobody's perfect. the city is not perfect. and while i don't think that the issues that have been flagged vis a vis planning or the boa submittal process is right rise to the level of manifest injustice, they can always be improved and these types of issues, i think, could conceivably rise to the level of manifest injustice in other contexts were they to be repeated. so i do appreciate that they've been surfaced. i think it's a good exercise and in keeping everybody sharp. but i can express with respect to my vote that it wouldn't have made an impact. but i think i voiced in the second hearing that i was prepared to approve even the original plans. and so this was immaterial to my vote and my

decision that evening. that's it for me. okay. i'll ask for a motion in a second. i just want to share my thoughts. to be fair, i sat through a lot of hearings and one of the things that that i've tried to follow is an epithet like direction. and with the appellant in this case, i empathized with the appellant's pain and empathize. with their concern that they were not being fully heard and therefore, in my own line of questioning, i thought that i was extremely active in making sure the whole story got out. and so that gave me the comfort that it that i that i was giving the opportunity for the appellant to state their entire case. and the same thing on the

other side with the planning department and dbe with regard to is this code compliant, is this within the rules, is this within the laws? are we worrying about any other things related to the privacy light, air and all the things that are discussed and necessary to discuss? and i was very comfortable that everybody got everything out being hyper sensitive to, again, being empathetic to the appellant, that the appellant was worried, stated it twice, worried that that their initial brief was not accepted. but it was included in the luckily in the permit holders brief and also the hiccup related to the second rejection. so that's that was my

level of care. and so with that level of care and not hearing any new arguments that are any different from what we had today and not. i agree with commissioner lopez in trasvina, we got some hiccups within you know, admin illustratively, handling a few things, but i think we bent over backwards to accommodate the appellant very, very well in this case to make sure. so that's why i would deny a rehearing request and i don't think there was manifest injustice. es he's not happy with the result, but, you know, we, we, we don't we make about 50% of the people who come in front of us unhappy with our with our findings. that's from the start. and i would say it's more like 75 or 80 because the people that we do support, they they don't think they should be here in the first place. so, you know, i don't mean to make light

of this. so that's that's where i would stand. can i get a motion, please? why don't you, j.r, since you started it, finish it. all right, then. i would move to deny the rehearing request on the basis that there has not been presented any manifest injustice, nor any material facts and circumstances which, if known at the time of the original hearing, would have affected its outcome. okay thank you. on that motion on vice president lopez high commissioner trevino high commissioner lundberg, i present swig high. so that motion carries 5 to 0. and the rehearing request is denied. thank you. we are now moving on to item number five. this is jurisdiction request number 20. no, sir. for the we're afraid of comment. you can email tomorrow. right now we're moving on to

item number five. jurisdiction request number 23, dash three subject property at 2442. great highway letter from great highway llc requesting or asking that the board take jurisdiction over electrical permit number 202 306 262097, which was issued on june 26th, 2023. the appeal period ended on july 11th, 2023, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on october 5th, 2023. the permit holder is store a highway llc and the permit description installation of rooftop pv system pv system includes ac pv modules, a pv racking all necessary stanchions, conduit conductors and breakers. six roof mounted solar pv modules 425w per module six interactive inverter total number of rating. 2.304kw. and we will hear from the requester first. hi, this is tony brown from great highway llc. we first found out about

this when there were some people up on the roof and they were trying to attach something to the roof and the tenant that's looking into where they were installing, he mentioned, what are you guys doing? and then they said, well, we're installing, you know, we're installing solar panels. and he said, well, can you put it on an angle? it doesn't affect my the light as well as my view. and they started laughing. so when so then he, you know, he also mentioned that he didn't see any notices on the building that they were putting this permit and the work was being done. uh, he reached out to us to help out to see what could be done in regards to, to mitigate the issue and see what could be done to modify or do something. you know, this building is bitter for many, many years. we've never had any issue of such an invasion of privacy. and view

when it could possibly be modified or helped. um, and the tenant anthony settles was actually another hearing regarding the same building regarding the windows facing that direction. anthony settles he mentioned this issue as well at the time and there were some comments that came that that, okay, they're going to look out when it when this hearing comes up. he couldn't unfortunately make it because of the accident that that he had. however, we're very concerned that you know with some of these issues that's going on with with really no letting the neighbors, you know, they pull a permit and it could easily affect tenants have been there and they've enjoyed being there by the ocean and the privacy and this really invasion of privacy having you know losing the lights and your your

view which is really what a lot of people are there for. so to enjoy the privacy and have the view and it's just ruining it, ruining it without really any type of consideration to possibly modify or any any type of work because they pulled the permit and they're just sticking to just pulling the permit and getting the work done for their own benefit. so i'm hoping that there would be some consideration or some some something that could be done to possibly modify this, not deprive tenants seconds yeah. not deprive the tenants from from their privacy and have their privacy compromised in this situation. okay. yeah are you done? yes thank you. i don't see any questions at this time, so we will hear from the permit holder.

hi, good evening, president swig, members of the board. i'm tom tunney of reuben. jason rose on behalf of the permit holder, i'm a little bit torn about how much to say here tonight. we. as you we had the same question before us a couple of weeks ago on this property. as you may recall, this is four unit property that the property owner is renovating. the units we talked about the legal standard last time, whether for this permit, the appeal period has passed. and the question is whether the city intentionally or unintentionally caused the appellant to be or request her to be late in trying to appeal

the permit. he has not alleged that the city did or inadvertently caused him not to appeal. so again, as as before, that would typically be the end of the consideration portion. on the other hand, as has come up tonight already for the board, there are i know the board is interested in in knowing about the case and the property. last time there were some confusion about whether notices had been properly provided or what the project was about and that's hard to anticipate here. but i just can assure you that we've followed every procedure we've been required to do all proper notices have been provided. there is no notice for this

particular permit. we talked about in our briefing that the state and local law are very intentional about that. the state law limits the. local jurisdiction has powers concerning solar, solar power. the state is trying to promote solar power. so is the city. this permit was properly issued. we showed you the proposed plan in the 30s the panels will be inspected by the building department to make sure that they are code complying. so that's really all we have for your consideration tonight. i want to be available for any questions. you have the property owner is available by video as

well. thank you. thank you. i don't see any questions. so we'll hear from the planning department. no. okay. we'll hear from the building department. good evening, president swig. vice president lopez commissioners matthew green representing the department of building inspection tonight. the permit before us is for a small solar system. it's under four kilowatts. so these permits are actually issued automatically online. there's it's a non-discretionary just issued ministerially. there's no plan review. there's no notification requirement. so i'd say the request for a jurisdiction here is misplaced. but if you did have a hearing, i'm not sure what you would look at. the state is the local jurisdictions are restricted. they can only limit solar for health and safety reasons. so i don't think the privacy issue here really holds up. and i'm not quite sure what the privacy issue is. it's a solar system. people won't be

standing on it. there is a it's been mentioned before. there is a roof deck permit that is going through the process which will probably be heard here later. but i'm here for any questions you may have. thank you, president swig, then commissioner lundberg. thank you. yeah i think we're all clear that view doesn't matter. i and with regard to privacy, again, i don't know how a privacy is impacted by, although albeit probably not the piece of sculpture that you want to be looking at outside your window. i don't know what that how that impacts privacy, but what i'm interested in is and this might be as good a time of entry for you to give us a little briefing on this. we're into new territory with things like solar panels on people's roofs. 15 years ago, we wouldn't have even

been talking about about solar panels as a something that are being promoted for use by our state, federal and city government. it's the technology wasn't there to make it accessible. et cetera. et cetera. but now we're moving into a whole new territory. so where i don't think tonight is the appropriate night, but when can you provide? when can. we provide this panel with a broader briefing on solar panels? and how you deal with this on a day to day basis? because now they aren't they aren't exceptional. they are going to be more and more of our our day to day lives. you are probably getting i'm going to make a great assumption that you probably have more solar panel applications this year than you

did last year and certainly more than you did five years ago. and so can you give us a brief commentary on do you have a policy related to the solar panels other than what you just verbalized and would you be pleased, willing to at some later point give us a briefing on the do's and don'ts about how and how you are going to communicate those do's and don'ts about the implementation and installation of solar panels ? sure. i'd be happy to have one of our we have a whole electrical plant tech division. i'd be happy to have them put a presentation together for one evening here as to our present policies as smaller systems are issued automatically without much, much without any review. actually, the review comes at the inspection side. there will be an electrical inspection. at that time, the inspector will verify that this meets the minimum standards of the

electrical code. that's when they will present the drawings, the construction drawings. they're not approved plans. they're just construction drawings for the use of the installers. large, larger systems will go through plan review that would, you know, larger system might provide more weight onto the roof and might need to be structurally upgraded another time. sometimes the solar systems are included in the actual permit applications for new construction that would go through the regular plan review process. those would be subject to those permits. would be subject to appeal. here do you have any specific questions about our policy? i just it's such a broad question. just for clarification. i mean, what i'm hearing is that if you had to put a direct tv dish on your it's like putting a directv dish on on top of your your your roof. it's going to be this sorry about this direct tv, but it's going to be an ugly dish.

it's going to sit on the roof and somebody, your neighbor is going to have to look at it. but it's a plug and play and it serves the purpose of providing a utility to the building on which it is. yeah and we've received complaints about those over the years. i can understand that. and so is this is this a good analogy that this is a minor piece, relatively minor piece of utility technology, a physical piece of utility technology, which is necessary to provide a utility. and as long as it's not overly obtrusive or weighs too much, that it might collapse the whole building. it's just over the counter and you just let it go at that. correct. but subject to subject to inspection that it's installed properly? yeah. okay thanks. thank you, commissioner lundberg. thank you. mr. green. my question is actually along the same lines as president suites, which is, is there a do you have a specific code citation regarding the automatic

approval of solar panels? i totally believe you. i'm just curious because this is new information to me tonight. do i have a specific code section? yeah. that authorizes building to authorize kind of over the counter online, as you described virtually? i do. if i have our it's our policy systems smaller than four kilowatts. we consider them small systems and we issue them automatically online. okay i'm happy to get that code section for you. i apologize for a future meeting. thank you. thank you. i don't see any further questions. is there any public comment on this item? any public comment on zoom? i don't see any. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. sorry, commissioners. anybody want to start on this or make a motion? commissioner trasvina saw you move towards your machines. so you move on this panel, man. you

get you get busted on it. so would you like to make a motion? i i will. i will decline to make a motion. i if there is a motion to deny the request for jurisdiction, i will support it. okay. anybody like to make that motion? then i'll make the motion that we deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the permit was properly issued. well, we you'd want to see the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to be late in filing the appeal. right fine. okay. on that motion, vice president lopez, commissioner trevino, i, commissioner lundberg, i commissioner epler, i. so that motion carries 5 to 0 and the request is denied. we are now moving on to item number six. this is appeal number 20 3-043. john wang versus department of building inspection planning department approval, subject property. 1334 12th avenue. appealing the issuance on september 7th, 2023.

i just want to make sure the captioner is. yeah, okay. so i can begin again if. no, that's okay. okay appealing the issuance on september 7th, 2023 to eric hall and helen favor of a site permit horizontal addition to the rear on three levels and a 12 foot pop out. this is permit number. 2021 05069906. thank you and welcome. mr. wong. you have seven minutes. okay i would like to. i'm sorry. did you want to make a request to continue this first? okay. so prior to the hearing, mr. wong would like to make a request to continue this matter, and the other parties will have three minutes to respond to this request. it? yeah. my good evening, president. president swig and honorary members of the board. my name is john wong. i'm representing 1338 12th avenue. the property adjacent to the 1334. that's building out. the

reason for the request for the continuance is that i noticed in the attached email to a copy of plans sent to the board has a lot of changes in them. we never received a full set of plans from the for the permit holder. we've only seen gotten partial like 2 or 3 pages at a time. and so we i'm curious as to we were able to get a full set of copy online through research of our own, but no set of plans were ever supplied to given to us by the permit holder and so by seeing that email and the attachment it and i printed it out, but it's so small, even with the overhead was, even with the magnifying glass, like i cannot, cannot make it out. it's just so tiny. but i see lots of

red lines that aren't on the copy that i have, so i would like continuance in order to review these plans to see whether or not how many changes there are versus the plans. i have and whether or not they were the approved plans during the hearing, or have they been changed significantly since that since i in the plans that i do have, i have almost 100 errors in the plans. so. this is just the first page and i've numbered them all out. so. you can see the with the original plans have almost 100 errors. i'm curious to whether or not these new set of plans have even more. they've done some corrections to them i've noticed but but it's too small for me to catch them all.

so i would like to also request a reduced size or reduced size set of plans, full set of plans to compare them with and given that time to research them. okay, thank you. we have a couple questions. uh, commissioner trevino and then commissioner lundberg. thank you, mr. huang. with regard to your request, i have two questions. have you had the opportunity to discuss with the permit holder any of your objections to the current plans? not the new ones, but the current ones? the current ones? yes. i mean, we were never satisfied with the, uh, the changes that they made for light air and privacy. we, in fact, the, the light well that they proposed is on. it might be directly across from the windows

kitchen windows, but it's on the third floor only and the windows are on the second floor. mr. wong for the moment, i'm not interested in the substance of them. i just wanted to establish that you have engaged in discussions with him about your concerns. we had a zoom meeting to try to mitigate. so my second question is if we grant you a continuance, would it be your intention if the permit holders are amenable to once you see the new plans is share your concerns, any additional concerns or current concerns with the permit holders so that if we grant a continuance and you return that at least you both would have the opportunity to resolve some issues, would you be amenable to that if they are, certainly, yeah. i'm we've been amenable the entire time. thank you. the issue we've had with the permit holder is that they've constantly withheld information on the status of their plans. they never supplied

us the full set of plans. so we were kept in the dark as well as them submitting for a permit prior because we were at the pre-application meeting, which they also deleted our attendance there and also filled in my sisters attendance. she was not attended the meeting, so thank you, commissioner lundberg. thank you, mr. wong. i'll have other questions for other parties here, but, uh, i just lost it. um. darn it. uh uh. sorry. let me think for a second. i don't want to pass it, or else we go on to the next party.

oh if. if we were to grant the continuance and grant the request, your. you're asking for is the potential purpose behind that to potentially reassess whether our the grounds for your appeal would be the same? uh, or is it. to for further confirm a further from firm my case for the appeal. yeah okay. yeah thank you. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we'll now hear from the permanent holder. mr. hall, welcome. you have three minutes. and this is just to address his request to continue it for the plans. sure hello. hi. my name is eric hall, and i'm the owner at 1334. 12th avenue. um yeah, so this has been a very long process, you

know, trying to file, you know, permits for 311. we i did engage with john and in regards to we went through a process where we had somebody in the planning department go and be a negotiator and i have also provided some changes that i thought were sufficient. this house, you know, is fairly small. i have, you know, two young kids. i'm you know, it's basically not yeah, i'm trying to build a house. so it's big enough for us to live there. um, so, so as far as his concerns, i mean, we, all the plans are all actually available. i mean, this went through, doctor, it got approved. and, and then afterwards, my architect worked with planning in order to get the site plan right. um as far as the ones that i added to the

documents, it was said that, hey, you should try to add that as well. i think that's from julie. it was a recommendation on actually i had taken photos with my phone and attached them all together, but you know, we do have the full set of plans, you know, available. uh, john hasn't been very responsive. i've, i would say they've been actually very difficult to work with and that's probably in the notes with, um, with david winslow. um, and i'm not exactly sure if you know, we can try, but i think it would be very difficult to come to a conclusion here. i think it's just unfortunately their windows face my garden. and so, you know , when i do my extension, it's going to prevent them from looking into my garden. and that's their concern. their windows are in the middle of the house and they built an extension to the end of the property line. and so and so

they have like max expansion on their side and have windows in the in the center area. and i just don't know, like any extension i do, i'm going to block those right. and that's why i kind of put a light. well so they can look up. i'm also not doing max expansion. i actually reduced it by to two feet, six inches on the first floor and then on the second floor, it's one feet. so i did make some accommodations. they weren't not very agreeable during the doctor and but i did get a unanimous decision during the doctor that i was following all the rules and all the guidelines and the architectural guidelines. thank you. okay thank you. we have a couple questions from commissioner. you can stay there, please. sure. from commissioner lundberg, then president zweig. sure. thank you, mr. hall. my question is an easy one. are you if we were to grant a continuance tonight, as as mr. wang is request, and are you willing and able to provide a full set of plans to mr. wang

well in advance of that hearing as he's asked for. um, yes, i guess i would. sure okay. thank you, president zweig. yeah, i'm going to take a different tack here. you know, the i'm sensitive to manifest injustice. how long have you been working on your project to provide housing for a more comfortable housing for your. your children? yeah, i know this has been a very challenging and hard experience working with the planning department, working with all the different departments long. just give me a number. two over three years. yeah and how old are you? how old are your children when you started? yes it was around around seven. and now they're. and now, now they're, they're 12. yeah. 12 and 15. and it's unfortunate, you know, i'm trying to stay in san francisco. you you answered. you answered my question. it's taken a long

time and what i'm sensitive here in and i'd like to bring that in front of the commissioners is and i'll ask some questions of on a technical or planning and technical things but but we have to be sensitive of that. there's about the process, the length of that process and this does no good for this gentleman when these kids are 18 and ready to go to college, you know, so the issue of manifest injustice surfaces for me. thank you. that's all. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the planning department. you have three minutes to address the board on this request at. once. again, tina tam for the planning department. based upon the plan submitted and the information available in our records, i don't believe the drawings are inaccurate. there were some inconsistencies early on as part of the original plan set where some of the

measurements were depicted incorrectly, but the architect worked with the project planner and was able to clarify in the revised plans the accurate measurements of the building and the setbacks based on the review of these plans. with acting deputy matt green, we concluded the actual rear setback is larger than the original plan set and that there is no evidence today that the current plan set revise is before you are inaccurate. thank you. president swig has a question. so when the appellant just puts just he puts something on the a list of questions and i saw inches as you know this this i don't know whether it was a window i don't know it was a door. but it was like 2.5in. what what is the where do you get bothered or where should we worry? where do you get worried

when there are in inaccuracies? do you get worried about inches or do you get worried about feet or yards? thank you. that's a great question. we certainly get worried when the building is shown larger than what was previously reviewed and approved by planning or through the neighborhood notification process when something kind of just automatically got bigger and no one got a chance to review it. planning and building or the neighbors in this case, that's not what we're seeing in the plans in fact, i think the setback got larger at the rear. so we didn't feel the need to have any kind of re review or resubmit with the neighbors. so you just answered. i think my second question, which was how much larger could this this building be, in fact, than it is planned? how much larger could

could the project sponsor have made this building even larger and still been compliant and within code, we didn't look at that possibility. but the zoning district for this property is in the rh two and 40 x height and bulk district that they are proposing to construct a three story and you know, there is a pop out but there's certainly room for more right? so they could have and still be code compliant or they could have made a larger is the point. okay. did they have to build the lightwell for the light? well, that's being proposed in the in the current plan, which is a revised plan set came about when the appellants filed their doctor during the 311 notification process. and the light well four feet by ten feet is something that became part of

the proposal well before the planning commission heard the heard the doctor. right. okay. so so the it came as a result of the doctor. did it come voluntarily? voluntarily on the part of the permit holder okay. so he didn't have to do it. he didn't have to do it. he might have been required to do it if the if the doctor had gone another way. but for all intents and purposes, he came he came up with it first, right. he came up with it and presented it to the planning commission, which is the planning commission accepted as the revised version of the evidence of, of collaboration and a and a and a compromise. right. it was a response to some of the issues that he heard. right. okay let's talk about windows on property lines. one of our favorite subjects for years and years and years. so the issue is that that there are property line windows. is that the appellant the appellant has

property line windows or that the appellant has. i heard somebody say something about the view onto the garden and the, you know, the obstruction of that view. is that something that we need to pay attention to or is that that's what you get when you got windows on one side of your property and somebody decides that they're going to expand their building. and that's just the way it goes in the big city of san francisco. so i'm i'm not aware of any property line windows on the appellants property or the subject property. there are windows nearby on the shared property line, but they're not on the property line. no no windows will be obstructed. okay. as part of this project. so so we don't, um, it's the same old story. views are not protected. light and air would be protected. but in this case, there's no issue to worry about. light and air. well the light well, that's proposed helps to lessen any sort of potential

impacts to light and air. okay, thanks. and finally, plans finalized plans there. if there was a doctor, there had to be plans, correct? correct. and as as part of the was the appellant provided those plans or what was the accessibility to the plans. that seems to be a contentious issue for the appellant. great question. the revised plans that incorporated the light rail was part of the doctor package. yep. doctor package. are uploaded on our website and it's made available to anybody and everybody. it's accessible well in that regards, i don't know whether they the permit holder handed a copy directly to the but to the neighbors. the point is the these plans were made available to the appellant or they were made available to the public. there is no no hidden agendas. and these plans are as

they stand today. and one just put the consideration that you mentioned, there's a few inches in, there were a few misses, but that those weren't anything that were out of the ordinary. and those have been corrected to my knowledge. yes. okay thank you, commissioner trevino. i'm a little bit i'd like to ask you, president, a little bit confused as to what we were discussing. i, i was under the impression that we asked at least mister wong to limit his comments to the issue of a continuance. and it now sounds like we're getting into the substance of the issue. and i'm worried that if we don't grant the continuance, we will have not really heard the full breadth of the substantive reasons for the for the request

or for the for bringing this forward. so are we on are we open to a motion after this is after this session occurs only to only on the on only on the continuance? okay. great. thank you. and i we do have a question for miss tam. i apologize for not indicating that earlier. thank you. thank you for that reminder, commissioner. as i went immediately into the weeds. thank you, miss tam. you described the plans. i believe you said you don't have any evidence that they're inaccurate . can you state it a different way that you say that they are accurate. we have information in our records. samba board maps, aerial photographs, and we use

those information to kind of gauge as to whether the building and the setbacks were drawn accurately or not. the planner was aware of some measurements that weren't depicted correctly early on and worked with the architect to make sure that the measurements can be corrected as part of the revised plans. i have been out there. i didn't. i didn't use a tape measure to measure. i'm not sure i can actually say the measurements are accurate. that's not really what we can do. but the plans are drawn. they're drawn by a licensed architect and they're supposed to be accurate to the best of their ability. okay. and the architect is available on zoom. if you have questions. no, i just wanted to clarify. i want to hear when i hear there's no evidence of something, i usually take that to mean that there is an affirmative statement that there is. but in this case, you're not. you're representing

that. there's no evidence that they're not accurate at and the drawings that you have seen are is it are you saying that that mr. wong has those? he seems if i understand his testimony tonight, it's the materials that were included in the permit holders submission and are different and that he hasn't seen them before. are you saying that what you've reviewed are things that the appellant has has? i'm not entirely sure what he saw. i'm looking at the plans that were a part of the response brief. and they're the plans are contained in them. there are also plans included in the commission package which they match each. so i'm not sure where where the evidence evidence lies in in the

inaccuracies. well, on the issue of a continuance, as i understand the stated reason is so he can review what's in the submission because at the moment it's not at a large enough font or it's not enough to a degree for him to review it. and you're saying you have reviewed those, but he sounds it sounds like he hasn't. and i just wanted to understand your testimony as to whether you're saying you've seen them and he's seen them or i don't know whether he's seen them. i'm not him. i've seen them deputy director seen them. we reviewed it together today. they we were able to go ahead and look at the measurements. i'm not sure if your question is to me, to matt or to the. i'm just i'm just trying to establish the accuracy of mr. wong's statement that or rather,

it sounds to me like you've seen things and mr. wong is saying he hasn't seen them in a form that he can actually read. and i just i'm just trying to i was able to read them pardon me, i was able to read them. okay, great. thank you. okay no further questions. we'll hear from. evening commissioners matthew green representing again, i did review the plans with tina tan from the planning department this afternoon. we were able to read the plans, but i will say the plans, once the permit was issued, the plans were available at dbe for the appeal period until they are sent off to the vendor to be uploaded. there currently being uploaded. they're supposed to be done within the next 48 hours. as to

the issue of the continuance, i would kind of agnostic on that. i if it would help in neighborly relations, i'd say grant the continuance. i will say this is a site permit. so construction is won't start until the first agenda is issued. so if i'm available for any questions, you may have, vice president lopez has a question. yeah. thank you for your remarks. the just kind of echoing a question that we asked to ms. tam to your knowledge, which are the plans that you were able to access, it sounds like today, are those the same plans that were available during the doctor hearing? they're the same substantial plans. there are a couple measurements that were corrected in the in the second set, the set that went through the actual approval process got it. but substantially the same. and then do you do you know how long the

current plans that you reviewed today, how long those have been publicly posted and available? so once the permits issued, they're available at our records management division for anybody to review. that's for the appeal period. and they're actually stick around for another 15 days or so. they're not available up publicly yet because it's it takes some time for it to be uploaded. it's they've the physical plans have been picked up and they're at the vendors office now. i have asked for them to expedite the uploading. so if you do grant the continuance, the appellant would be able to go into our records management and look at the approved plans. got it. so when have they knowledge? how long have they been available at dbi? since the permit was issued was issued on september 7th. got it. okay thank you. and a quick question, but these are basically the same plans that were available in the dr.

correct yes, substantially. there's a couple dimensions that were corrected in the. would you consider them significant dimensions or something that would materially change the project? i would not know. okay. so the a fuller or an alternative answer is that these plans have been available publicly since the doctor, which was remind me of the date second or so, 26, 20, 20, 22. right. so about a year, year and a half. okay all right. thank you. okay. thank you. nothing further. so so remember, we're just voting at this point on whether or not to continue it. you can either decline to entertain a vote and move forward with the case or you can vote to. are we taking public comment? yeah is there any public comment on this on on this is on the motion to continue. okay. please approach

the microphone. thanks for the reminder. i'm really well aware of the properties i've been at nancy and john's place. hundreds of times. i've actually been in the permit holders house before he moved in hundreds of times. we were very good friends with the couple that lived there. i appreciate mr. swig's comments about manifest justice or injustice. the appellant has been treated with manifest injustice. for example, this drawing is part of the plan submitted overhead. please, i don't know how to do it, but those plans it appeared this was actually given at the doctor. we were never submitted it. i will tell you, as an electrical engineer, masters, that this has multiple errors in it and you can just from here, if you look from here to here, it says it's ten feet. and if you look from here to here, it says it's ten feet by your eye. you can see it's not ten feet. the plans that john mentions that had errors, there are hundreds of errors, not inches. mr. swig, 14ft in one of them, 14ft. the

windows on the on the side that are supposed to be shown at least somewhat accurately, not six inches, several feet. and these were the plans that that as far as i know, that planning use to use in the process of with the design, with the residential design guidelines. i've requested the matrix and have not received it at this point to see where they are. but i will say that part of john's case is that part of the residential design guidelines of the principles, says that when the person builds, they need to maintain not adequately maintain the light. i will if you offer the continuance and based upon the new plans i did hyper accurate assessments of how the light comes and hits not just daylight, not just direct sunlight, but indirect sunlight. they cannot quantify the comment was made for the by planning and i have a great respect for david winslow. let me tell you, i've worked with him before, but in

this case, to say that it is adequate, there is no definite term of what adequate is, what is adequate, but to maintain something you maintain it without a decrease is there's a great disparity disparagement in how that is being applied. and i mean, i think that on that alone i'd be happy to provide you a very, very in-depth analysis and i'll submit it ahead of time so you can review it. thank you very much. i appreciate it. we have did you have a question for this individual? sorry, just a point of information. i think you're you're drawing was was upside down. oh, well, i'm sorry. yep i didn't know what the proper word. yeah. overhead, please have my glasses on. so no , no problem. thank you. i came at the last second. yeah. okay but yeah, i'll give it to you guys so you can do it if you want. i have no problem with that. i don't need it. i don't think it's necessary. thank you. but if you could fill out a speaker card so we can get your name right for the minutes.

thank you. so you guys did a great job. you're one of the best committees there is. i just thank you personally. so, commissioners, did you want to entertain a vote to continue or just decline and move on to the case? i would like to hear the commissioners thoughts on that and commissioner was first to the to the button, so we'll hear from him first. thank you, president swig. and i thank everyone for their forthright and helpful testify, including the member of the public on this matter. i believe that i appreciate the growing children of the permit holder who and who are awaiting their bedroom and larger house. and i'm sure there's a lot of agony in that. but i also know that under our rules, the appellant can seek a rehearing if, if, if we proceed tonight and he feels, for whatever reason, he wants a rehearing. so i believe there would be not a final resolution of this necessarily tonight. i

note that we have a hearing on november the first, which is just seven days from now. i would i would hope that that would serve enough time for everyone to be able to come back . but i leave that to the president in terms of scheduling. i would i would move to grant the request for a continuance. there's a lot of differences of views as to why what what what has been depicted when what's a minor change what's a more substantial change . and so i would i would at the appropriate time make that motion to grant the continuance as anybody else. i generally concur with commissioner trevino's point. i think, you know, we readily grant continue ounces in many other circumstances and. i just don't

see a reason that's different from how why we normally grant continuances that is somehow different in this case why we shouldn't upon the request of. the appellant and i do think that the chance as commissioner trasvina said, the chance of a rehearing request is high if we don't and i don't think the appellant is asking for that much here. so for those reasons, i would be supportive of a continuance to a future meeting, possibly longer than november 1st, just because a week is not a long time, maybe to the meeting after that. but i'm open to ideas on that particular point. commissioner lopez yeah, i, i tend to disfavor the continuance in this case. this

given what it sounds like, is like a relatively standard availability of these plans. but i'd be i'm open to it if, if we particularly if we can do it for november 1st or the 15th. i'd be i'd be more open to it because that doesn't seem like a too big of an ask to the permit holder. commissioner eppler, do you have any comments? well, i find myself sitting where i did earlier this this evening, you know, on on on a fence, you know , the way that we looked at this earlier, you know, i voted for a continuance in this circumstance . i do appreciate this idea of doing this as quickly as we can. i do think that, you know, whether it's one week or two weeks, those either could be

adequate for the review of the information here to see if there is anything different. i do think that the fact that there is some difference, i think it behooves us to see what the extent of that difference actually is and to hear that from, you know, multiple parties. if there is a disagreement around that and we can't get that tonight because that may or may not be material to our decision. and i think that materiality is where we get to the issue of the rehearing request that my commissioners have rightfully gone to. so if we can do this in an expedited fashion in order to respect the permit holders desire and to get going with this project that has taken so long, then then i'm amenable to having the continuance as well. i'm less on the fence. we have a set of plans that was in a doctor. a doctor allows the opportunity for some scrubbing and rubbing

and review and it went through that review and. planning said, fine with us and then they've had a chance to review it for and make comment for this hearing and. and although there were some adjustments made to the plans again the feedback was not material and. and also i'm hearing commissioner trasvina saying there's a rehearing request in our future. but unless a new another set of plans reveals something that these set of plans don't reveal, therefore new conditions that were not discussed tonight and

i'm playing the odds here that there won't be material things discovered. i would rather tonight get this thing over with, take the risk of something material surfacing in a revised set of plans which again, i have to trust the professional nature of planning and ppe to say that no, you know, same as it was in d.r. and we don't have any problems with it. and it could have been a lot bigger. and oh, by the way, there was some collaborative exercise on behalf of the permit holder to put in a light well to address and mitigate some of the light and air issues. so i'm i'm more with let's let's get it over with tonight and again if a new two weeks from now a new set of

plans comes in and there's something material and we're you know, we're still in the rehearing window and then the appellant can file for a rehearing and show us that there was something material. so i'm more in the camp of let's get it, let's get it done tonight. but you know, if, if, if it's two weeks from now, i'm fully willing to be overruled. on, on that because hell, you know, it's been a it's been five years. two weeks is not going to make that much of a gigantic difference. so i'm not going to be kicking and screaming if we have the continuous. but i don't i don't think i can support it. so if we have a motion, i would appreciate that from somebody. so we have november first or the 15th available and another question is, are the plans, are the parties available? well first first of all, mr. green, when are the plans have been

sent to the vendor. for reprinting and all that stuff? when is the vendor going to be be able to circulate plans in case of a continuance. so the appellant can hear it. i asked him to expedite it. so generally 48 hours so it should definitely be by monday. and presumably the architect has an approved set of plans if they could just forward them to the appellant court. so that could be done immediately, correct. can you verify that since the appellant the architect, is on the line? yeah. can you ask the architect, can he forward mr. lorenz, do you have the approved set of plans that you could forge the appellant thank you for allowing me to speak real quick. i'm not sure what the approved set of plans are. are we talking about the approved set of plans that the plan planning commission approved of approved? or are we looking at the site permit that were issued in conjunction with the site permit that is being appealed? okay. yeah because i

think that there is not very specific around the whole thing. so yes, i have the permit plans as slightly modified because we added additional information on the neighbors. but i can definitely send that over to him . is this the set of plans? let's stop dancing? is this a set of plans that is currently being printed by and uploaded by dbi to the vendor who is making reproductions of them? well, the plans that i'm having uploaded, they'll have all the approval stamps and everything for the site permit. i'm not sure what and does. and do you have those? i'm sorry. the architect's name. i lost it. tim lawrence. tim is that the same set of plans that you have in your possession? yes. without the stamps. okay. so yes, the answer is yes. he has the plans. and i'm assuming you you would be willing to send them to the appellant posthaste

and not wait 48 hours. yeah i can send them in the 24 by 36 drawings for the planning commission approved and also the site plan permit plans. i just want him to get the plans that are being reproduced right right now as a result of ppe submission. can you send those plans? the site plans? yeah. question. i mean, it's a simple it's yes or no. yes. or no. these are the site plans, right? the site. because the thing is, site plans are the doctor has more plans. but what gets sent? no site plan. i'm just simply saying we need some ears here. sorry for being a little bit touchy on this, mr. green said that there is a set of plans that he sent to a vendor which are his approved plans. are those plans available through the architect of the of the permit holder, yes or no, i hear yes. yes great. that's what he can therefore send to the appellant. great and you can do

it immediately if we don't go forward tonight. that's all i wanted to hear. any further comments? do i have a motion i before we make a motion to which may continue this? i have a request that i will attach to the motion. if it's if it's allowed. and that is, i'd like to move move the, uh, move for the continuance of at a at a date to be set by the president at and i would also. express the or if i can do this, i'd like to grant the appellant the ability to file a brief in this matter in order for the permit holder to know what the appellant's concerns are and for us to be able to know in advance of the

next meeting what the appellant's concerns are. i understand the appellant sought to file a late brief, and he was on page nine. it says reject it for being untimely. i understand he made a request to submit it late prior to the deadline, and i think for our purposes, which will not cause further delay, but actually will help our process if we can get his brief for the next. okay. the only issue is that the permit holders should have an opportunity to respond to his brief. so that does prolong the whole process. i'm so you're not going to get support from your continue from me so i would i'd like for somebody who might give you that support to respond to your thoughts. anybody. well well, then i'd like to amend my request to set the deadlines for the appellant's brief and the

response without endangering the quick new date for this hearing. i have to defer to the well, mr. wong did submit a brief after 5:00, so he has a brief and the permit holder has seen the brief and he did provide a response. so i don't know if you were by allowing him to submit a new brief, would he change his arguments then he would have to respond. so would you basically so would you be would you be comfortable, given that the plans, given that these plans will not and i'm still not necessarily going to support your motion, but given that these as these plans have been read, presented as not that are forthcoming, are not any different than pretty much than what they were before, would you be comfortable in simply

allowing the lead brief to be submitted in time for what might be the continuance date of november 1st? yes i would. okay any further comment? are you done? i'm sorry for cutting you off. if i did, yeah. so i'm moving to continue to a date to be set by the president and to accept the brief of the appellant. okay jose. oh, oh, sorry. alex, do you want to go? thanks i, i just. i would support commissioner trevino's motion. i just want to add that. one light went off in my head, which was the i didn't actually realize that there had been a request to submit a late filing. and to me that the light that went off was that that being a potential reasonable accommodation request. and for that reason i would be even more uncomfortable denying saying

that from coming in. and it may or may not have been that, but i think it would lean toward at least giving the benefit of the doubt on that, on that particular issue. november 1st brief would be due tomorrow. well, what we don't really have deadlines. we would just accept the late brief that he submitted that the appellant submitted. and he's the permit holder was aware of it and has responded. so it would just go into the record. so basically we'd all meet in one week, right, with briefs and the plan is. jose, you got any further comment? yes i'd just like to clarify with the with the permit holder. so it sounds like you received and the late brief, is that correct? yes. and then would would your your brief have changed if you had received that at all? okay, that's that's all i want to confirm. thank you. yeah. you're

the only one who hasn't commented anything. i, i made my comments earlier, and i'm just letting the sausage get made so i know what i'm voting on. okay, so november is. is november. should we? one week would be great. yeah. there's no are are both parties available november 1st because that's that's november one week from one week from today. and the permit holder is available one week from today. the meeting for a long time, i think one week. okay yes. all right. so let's let's let's accept the motion for november 1st. so you're making that motion? no, it was already made for november 1st. okay so we have and you also want to allow for the brief move, move to grant a continuance to november the 1st

and add allow the appellant's brief to be put into the record for this case. yes okay. yes on that motion, vice president lopez, commissioner lundberg, commissioner eppler a swig? no okay. so that motion carries 4 to 1 and we will see you all next week. and please have your architect email the plans to mr. wong and mr. wong. please let us know immediately if you have issues with the plans. okay. so so we'll put you we'll try and put you at the beginning of the hearing as well. so you don't have to wait. thank you. i did want to kind of clarify that the plan where with the plans that i wanted to get a copy of is the most recent copy of the plans that were approved in conjunction with the issuance of the permit. that's correct. thank you. make sure we're on the same page, okay. yes we are.

i think so. thank you so this concludes the hearing. i have a question. is, is there a way to get like planning to just say that what was in the doctor is exactly what's in the site plans because. yeah. well we'll be asking that same question when we have a hearing we will you will have every opportunity to say what you need to say and he'll have his brief. you'll have your brief and there'll be a the most recent set of plans. it'll be a beautiful thing. all right. thank you. >>

>> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's streets and sidewalks. local business communities are more resilient and our neighborhood centers are more vibrant and lively. fire blocks and parking lanes can be for seating and merchandising and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. when pair mets, firefighters and other first responders arrive at

a scene, they need clear visual access to see the building entrances, exits and storefront windows from the street. that means parklets should be transfer in the areas above inches above the sidewalk level. it's best if these areas are totally unobstructed by transparent materials may be okay. you can check with fire department staff to make sure your site meets visibility requirements. emergency response crews and their equipment need to be move easily between streets, sidewalks and buildings, especially when they are using medical gurneys, ladders and other fire fighting tools. that means that parklet structures need a three foot wide emergency feet every 20 feet and 3 feet from marked parking spaces and emergency access gaps need to be open to the sky, without obstructions, like canopies, roofs, or cables and should always be clear of tables, chairs, planters and

other furnishings. emergency responders need to use ladders to reach windows and roofs to buildings and the ladders need unobstructed overhead clearance and room to be placed at a 72-degree angle against the building. clearances needed around the ladders to move equipment and people safely up and down. so not all parklets can have roofs ask canopies depending on the width of the sidewalk in your area. please make sure that your electric cables are hung so they are out of the way and (indiscernible) to the structure, they can be pulled down by firefighters. cable connections need to be powered from an outdoor reciprocal in the building facade because hard wire connections are much more difficult to disconnect quickly. these updates to the shared spaces program will ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so we can all enjoy

these public spaces. more information is available at sf dot gov slash shared spaces. shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine,

past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique

offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so. >> who doesn't love cable cars? charging emissions and we're free which we're proud of you know, it's not much free left in the world anymore so we managed to do that through donations and through our gift shops. you got a real look and real

appreciation of what early transit systems are like. this was the transit of the day from about 1875 to about 1893 or later, you know. cable car museum is free, come on in. take a day. come down. rediscover the city. you can spend as time you want and you don't have to make reservations and it's important to be free because we want them to develop a love for cable cars so they do continue to support whether they live here or other places and people come in and say, yes, i have passed by and heard of this and never come in and they always enjoy themselves. people love cable cars and there's none left in the world so if you want to ride a cable car, you've got to come to san francisco. that what makes the city. without the cable cars, you lose part of that, you know, because people who come here and they love it and they love the history ask they can ride a cable car that has been running since 1888 or 1889. wow! that's something. can't do that with other

historical museums. rarely, have i run into anybody from outside who didn't come in and didn't feel better from knowing something about the city. it's a true experience you'll remember. i hope they walk away with a greater appreciation for the history, with the mechanics with people are fascinated by the winding machine and i hope the appreciation, which is a part of our mission and these young kids will appreciate cable cars and the ones who live here and other places, they can make sure there will always be cable cars in san francisco because once they are gone, they are gone. it's the heartbeat of san francisco that founded the cable and the slot and without the cable cars, yeah, we would lose something in san francisco. we would lose part of its heart and soul. it wouldn't be san francisco without cable cars. [bell ringing]

>> good afternoon everyone and thank you for joining me today. joining us all here today. my name is special agent jeremy brown with united states secret service and i'm the asian pacific enomic coordinator. the secret service and federal and state local partners joining me here today have been preparing for the apec leader summit, which was designated a national special security event. this event will take place in san francisco from november 15-18. the apec summit is a part of the apec leaders week and designated a national special security events. we refer as a nsse. due to the size significance and anticipated attendance. this will be the united