meeting every wednesday between 3 and 4:30. there is number of people who come through the building, say this is my firm time coming to na meeting. this person was a working person. a functional addict. i don't want to use drugs anymore. she was crying and didn't know where to go but your place. that accessibility needs to be there. >> thank you member patterson. i was looking at an earlier document about the street crisis team and just the mapping of all our crisis services and getting that data is super important and just want to second what you are saying in terms of the accessibility piece. i want to not take up too much time, but other members have questions or thoughts you want to share? >> i want to underscore as we are oversight committee you are

oversight committee, i think we are the ones that have to identify the questions we need to pose to the providers to the city departments about what still needs to be addressed. what needs to be finetuned and major changes is hard, but there is a lot that could be done with fine-tuning on a lot of these programs. >> that really speaks [indiscernible] the gaps. want to hear from you in terms of from a data and information conversations that have been had over the past couple years. what gaps are you seeing? [indiscernible] just curious from both of you. any thoughts on gaps? >> i see gaps everywhere. i think the first thing to say from the health perspectives our biggest gap, the biggest prp is the shortage of behavioral health clinicians is

we have behavioral--robust behavioral health service division of the department of public health and we have i think-we touch this priority population in all different places and shelters in supportive housing on the streets, in clinics and specialty meant health clinics in residential and primary care and in jails. we want to provide behavioral health service, behavioral healthcare in all those areas and if we can't keep our positions filled and filled with people who are committed to this work, people who understand the population we are serving, people who come from the communities we are serving, i think that's the biggest problem, the biggest

gap that we still struggling. getting down to the specific program area gaps, i think definitely psychiatric, skilled nursing. that's a area of residential treatment that especially with a aging chronically experiencing homeless population is a big big need and i think we are realizing the need for beds in those areas. i think--there are a lot of different gaps, but i guess those are a couple i'll mention to start out. i think we need safer places for people to use drugs and sober up from drugs if they are intoxicated. we have some great examples of sobering center, one for alcohol and one for other drugs

and there's--we need to grow programs like that. places to be where they are using drugs. i can talk- [laughter] there is a lot of needs but those are a few i'll mention. >> gaps and barriers. i think there's gaps with the programs and with the sections. mental health is defined to coordinate with homelessness, but one thing i'm not seeing anymore is not seeing the connection between na programs and drug programs and some of the other programs. like when my mom started mother brown's, first thing she did is bring in positive directions.

matter fact, positive directions trained the peer monitors. na meetings happening at the shelter--perfect fishing net. you have what is called harm reduction. i talked to somebody that worked at glide. these are 30 year veteran in this work and he said, abstinence and harm reduction should work hand in hand. a person might not want to get off drugs, but they get into harm reduction and you start slowly--it leads to the abstinence. i remember the shelters used to meet. not sure if they meet anymore. did we do away with the changes system? some of the changes system brought clarity to me because it was little things like i might deal with a client but i

see notes somebody wrote on a client so there is a better coordination how to deal with this client. in the changing system you pull up a client, the changing system connected to gas a well, right? you pull up the client there is notes and prior history. so now we have more a idea how to approach them. i think there is gaps between the programs to where there isn't enough communication. i'm not sure the f they meet anymore. they need to dialogue. there are barriers for the client. one of my experiences, he is [indiscernible] besides the jims, i get more from a client who's been through the system then i do for the actual counselor.

you got repeat offenders. what i mean is somebody that they go to jail, you get on ga they work through the shelter and now got housing and that person can write a book on the system. they may repeat, go to jail again, but they know how to work the system, so if they can work that system, why can't we just examine what they did and use it as a script? it isn't one shoe fits all, not trying to say that, but we definitely need compasses and needs to be less barriers for the person that needs housing today. for the person homeless today. a lot of people don't know what the drop in centers are about. they are about if you got no where to go, this is where you go, this is rock bottom. it might be somebody sleeping in they car and realize you got a car, you can go to the drop in center and have a car to assist you too. but the person don't got a car.

they feed to go to the drop in center and that is another step to get into housing. this is why the peer monitors need to be great referral experts, because there resources need to be tied to the shelters. access the shelter needs to be a way to get you in housing. as of right now, sometimes they can't tell people about a waiting list. give me clarity. if somebody suffering from mental health issues, that can just--we all got mental health issues, everybody at the table. you go through trauma and somebody can't get the answer it is like--barriers, there are barriers, there are gaps. i think people need to be trained. i love how he trained us,

because he gave us direction on how to deal with people with mental health and how to handle them with care and not get sued too. [laughter] >> hundred percent. i'll add another thing we are focused on a north star is racial equity because know [indiscernible] disproportionateality is black communities affected by homelessness. just wondering if that is something you are grappling with with your body in terms of racial equity analysis , looking at data and who mental health is impacting. want to hear in terms of racial equity. that is a big north star for us. >> we are willy-nilly on that. we go through the numbers.

that doesn't really speak to like what is happening. you know, i don't want--i'll say this, i'll say this, in a lot of ways people do get left out. there may be--there is residents, there are people that are experiencing homelessness and they don't need to be kept in the homelessness and somebody with a sro also still need help too. for people that are in sro, let's take people in the tenderloin who are a step above homelessness, there may be resources that come to the community and might not

necessarily come to the black residents, they might know about it to increase their life and wellbeing. i think some black clients they kind of just get maintained in their homelessness and not really get shown options. some good examples, i like it that hospitality house has a arts program for their clients. that's another fishing system. without getting too deep, there is a lot of keeping people in place and not really sharing information about people's options. people don't know there is funding out there for programs,

for certain areas and certain demographics. there are areas in tenderloin where the black people are at. you may have a drug dealer, may have a residents, may have somebody on drugs, you may have somebody homeless, but i see a guy he's a resident but he's selling food. this is like a small seed to block activation. to enhance the life. some of my experience and this was a program at valencia and i seen true equity. this was a sro banquet, and it was everybody from different walks of life. people from hip hop world that experience homelessness. transgender. native american. latino. right? but they are all survivors. this is how they saw themselves, and so they were sharing information with each

other about how are you coming along in your new living space. it isn't enough of that. definitely not enough of that. i helped somebody from --he was told by a immigration program, our services are not for black people. i was told this with him! i'm like at city hall and [indiscernible] happen to have conversation with [indiscernible] and she made a call somewhere and they jumped on the ball and the lawyer agreed to take his case. pro bono. i think black people are sustained in their problems and

not shown the options that may be out there. they are not open to like funding. a little funding to help activate the community and there is no grapevine communication system. black people on other black people who have been through the system. >> thank you for that. this is a conversation that needs to be had more. at ucsf have been talking about because folks may have bias about black folks and immigration. there isn't that check box offered. >> i'm for immigration. >> folks come from nigeria and [indiscernible] it is awakening that needs to happen. >> i was going to add and answer to your question that,

the key performance indicators i mentioned, the metrics we are following trying to get to outcomes, so follow up after 5150, wait time for icm for case management programs, and the other metrics we are following. when the data is presented to us in iwg we get a racial breakdown, and so we can see where the disparities are, where they are worsening. i think where we are not quite getting to is diving into the areas where we see the disparities persist, inequities persist and diving in. that is a problem and why does

that problem persist? why do be continue to miss this population usually the black african american population? i want to just give respect to our first chair, dr. lazar was the first chair of the iwg and i think she set the tone for the-for our group to always be asking those questions, those hard questions of if your are numbers are not better in this areas and disparities persist, why is that? why haven't we done a better job to address that and so i think we don't think made enough headway. i think the area where we have the most stark and alarming and probably very good hard data is

overdose deaths and the numbers are-we first saw broke it down by race were just staggering. i think when we first saw that huge jump in overdose death in san francisco it was like 4.2 rate the then among black african american san franciscans compared to other racial groups and lots of work going into thinking to talking to the community to looking to see where the deaths are happening and how can we intervene, but i think we are not making a dent in that disparity and that's the one that just-nobody with live with that. we can't live with being in a city with that kind of disparity so going back to community and talk to people,

figure once we-when somebody survives overdose, when there is non fatal overdose and follow up to find out what works of intervening is the work in our post overdose team. i think there still is many questions as answers. >> member freed friedenbach. >> ivy, what was the number on the behavioral health outcomes on african americans on the strategic plan? has there been progress in placements post 5150 and progress in wait time for icm? >> so, for 5150's, i was looking at the dashboard and we can send links to the dashboard.

i don't think there is a trend down. i think it is up and down and we probably have data only for the last year, maybe little more. i don't think--to the budget legislative analyst report done in i think 2019 that showed the numbers of people that were broke down by housing status overall and homeless count without service s post 5150. >> i guess i would say that, i have been working on data driven improvement my whole career. looking at it closely and figure how to improve. i feel we are just getting the data we need. we are pretty early in the process now. talking from the dph perspective and now we have to dive really deeply into it data we are seeing to sets targets

and see improvements. i don't think we are there yet to answer your question member friedenbach but we are getting good data now which is great. >> i was going to just really quick put in a plug for health access points. don't know if folks are familiar with that. there a black african american health access point. i know there is probably collaboration that could happen there. if you look at the dashboard, that is just--65 in october alone. >> access again. mental health clinic in bayview. i think it is still there. [indiscernible] a lot don't know about it. that's the-[indiscernible] that's where i brought the

client i helped get his immigration, because he it to go see a psychiatrist. that is where i was able to find him help. you got south of market, west side, people are familiar with west side. but there is still a lot of unfamiliarity about the mental health clinics and where they are located. you got soma. >> thank you for that. i will open up to committee before i take public comment and apologize, chair butler cannot join us, but we'll continue the conversation. this is the first of numerous conversations i think as more data becomes available. the commission is still coming on line and gatherer there data but opportunities for robust collaboration. what was shared today learning about the option when you call the 911, that is something i didn't know myself and sure

that information needs to be more broadly shared, so i think the more conversations we have, knowledge is power and for us in the leadership roles spread the information and be in conversation with each other so i appreciate a lot of information shared. i will turn to ivy. >> just to answer your question member friedenbach, the mental health client outcomes was the one unavailable in our report and we do link to the dashboard we just shared as well as a few others for sort and skirt, but that is a future reporting goal. yeah. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you so much. i want to lift up the black mental health support piece lifting up in our work because i think is needed. just with the point around the longer stay you have outside and on the streets, that's leading to the mental health conditions and if we know black

african americans are the largest population represented, that need for mental health support, very clear and increase and support for that. i really would love to learn more about not just training component of the peer program and more so of deep dive on that program as well continue to read information on it the street crisis response team and member friedenbach's point about the involvement of the fire des apartment and out pp comes to see how folks feel about the first response piece and i just curious about connections to care after the emergency room and connections to care from the street just the linkages and seeing kind of more data on linkage, how that is happening and of course just cultural sensitivity and responsiveness, i think it is really key. particularly when we think substance use disorder and other things in terms of stigma. that is my last question around

stigma and your body is around looking how to reduce the stigma. particularly in the black african american community because coming from that community there has been that stigma of seeking help and so just wanted to hear from you all on that reduces stigma around mental health support. >> society has to work on itself. i can't control how a individual is conditioned in their life, so if the inclination is grab [indiscernible] i don't know what to do about that. they need therapy on that end, but what i will say, it starts with not looking at everybody as the same when you see a group of people. it starts with realizing we are

defined with mental help is. every single human being live long enough they will have mental health. it is there. this is why certain corporations they assign a psychiatrist. i say that to make a left turn or right turn, but i think something to add and it may sound way out of the box but kind of being implemented is there are artists homeless. singers and musicians, let's like in that direction. i helped some people who struggle with homelessness but became residents helped them produce a rap video, on you tube. rap video. [indiscernible] by the tenderloin too.

empire records is by the tenderloin. even if somebody is homeless, you never know what they know. [indiscernible] legendary rapper out of oakland. i think that arts building, the hospitality, a lot of mental health right there. people get to draw for they therapy. i would say like i say, this is left turn, but i would say bring [indiscernible] somewhere in the l. that was like great interaction y. i don't know if thrfs there was a fight. why would you take that away? other then that, as far as

just-- >> got to pay for them. >> oh. >> accessibility, right? other then that, i would say we need teachings like his. how to care for people. people should know like--the first step isn't looking at everybody as the same. i really don't know how to cure somebody's racism. [laughter] >> the only thing i add, and don't think our group talked about stigma. i think it is is great question. i'm huge believer in integrating mental healthcare, mental health services, substance use service into all health services. you go to a hospital bed and walk into a prenatal visit, you see your regular doctor about diabetes and no matter where you touch the health system

which is huge, we are everywhere, somebody will ask about your mental health. somebody will ask you if you are using drugs or using alcohol, smoking, all those things, and that's my vision is it is so integrated that it becomes to be destigmatized. when i was pregnant 25 years ago maybe i would have looked sideways at my midwife if she said are you using drugs. i would have been like are you making judgments about me? now we are wanting to normalizing that. we ask every person in prenatal care, not pointing the finger, saying this is normal thing to have mental health challenges at all points in life and so that's something our whole person integrated care team we open this beautiful gorgeous few health resource center, the

maria x over at 7th and between mission and market, it is gorgeous. it is amazing. just having such a incredible state of the art building to serve people experiencing homelessness and offer dental care, offer prodity, behavioral healthcare, it is all there and i think that's what we have to do is acknowledge people have diabetes and people have schizophrenia and we are here to help them. >> how do we think about the cps as well because working with pregnant folks like the stigma around talking about mental health and--cannabis while pregnant, that fear oof losing your baby and it is real justified fear. >> especially if you are african american. >> how do we think about that too. [indiscernible] just sort of that piece around owning what

you're going through and is that going to enter into cps or police that can lead to worse outcomes, so i'll end with that, but i want to open up. >> public comment. i don't want to miss if we need to do that. >> going to open up to committee first before public comment. >> i think this last stigma conversation is the first thing i thought about i glad you brought it up, because the issue is how do we create a system that asks people what do you want and what do you need and assess also what they need they might not know without saying and how did you get this way or why do you do what you do and that's-i think that's a great way to approach not solve but approach racism because if i'm focused on your need, then

it doesn't matter who you are and what color you and gender you are and sexual orientation and so forth, so i think that is an approach we can all work at, and again put it on our backs as a oversight committee, we have to ask that question. thank you for bringing up the stigma. >> thank you member walton. i'll go down the line. >> i think we are a little sad about lack of able to vote on the tay housing today, which is real bummer and just for the public, we really really wanted to make that happen today but we don't have quorum but i want to thank the guests for commitment and service. seen you over the years in many different fronts so thank you for being social justice warriors and partnership with us and we'll continue to do the good work and thank you. >> i will say this and be very very short. i like our board.

our board comes-i don't go if everybody is originally from san francisco, but we come from a san francisco perspective, and that's above the race and everything. a real community san francisco perspective that has a grip how the sit a functions and how communities operates so that makes our board special. we have different ethnic groups on the board from asian, european and latino and i'm black. >> thank you to the work you are doing. ivy, can we see if we have public comment? >> members of the public who wish to comment in person please line up at the podium now. each person has two minutes to speak. there no in person public comments.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment over the phone, please call 415-655-0001 enter access code 26644140933 then pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system promp indicate you raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you are unmuted and you may begin comments. please note you center two minutes to speak. moderator, do we have any public comment over the phone? for the record, there are no over the phone public comment. >> thank you so much. thank you to everyone who joined us. we are not officially called to order so nothing to make a motion to adjourn but want to highlight we want have that vote or official vote forte housing item in the new year and we do have i where believe

commitment from hsh to start to move towards implementing some of the recommendations they heard from providers and from us and our individual comments. with that, i want to wish everyone a beautiful holiday break. i can't believe it is december and we are entering into 2024 . the year flew by and know we will have plenty work in the new year but hope everyone has time for rest and rejuvination and time with loved one. we will end this meeting, part meeting, part retreat for ocoh so thank you for joining. >> thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> i came here to san francisco the day after september 11. i have been here since and homeless since when i met erika and claudia and them, my life changed. for the better. why they got mow in the navigation center. >> good morning! >> >> hi. >> this is claudia and aircraftasm how are you. hi.

>> they are working doing out reach t. is building trust. and -- finding out what their needs are. everybody who i should be housed that is true. a lot of people don't know how to live indoors and how do we fix that? the number one service this we need to do that is the new vision of the team, is to be a familiar face that is consistent and reoccur nothing the community. >> behavioral health starts with us and other coalitions that relate. just building the friendships and the resource this is go with that. >> once hi near i better place they will be able to help and support someone else. peers and inspire someone based on the hard work. like a lot of people around him in the castro. >> y'all saved my life getting me up off the streets.

thank you. >> if you see someone experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis on the streets call 911. for nonemergencies use 311. you can learn more about the >> still a lot of people wonder since the trees have a lot of issues, why did we plant them in the first place? >> trees are widely planted in san francisco. with good reason. they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry. we have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular. this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large

stems that are all coming from the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb l. >> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities, and we can fix the

sidewalk around the tree in many cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree. >> in a city like san francisco our walks are not that wide. we have had to clear the branches away from the properties. most of the canopy is on the street side and that is heavyweight on those branches out over the street. that can be a factor in tree limb failures. a lot of people wonder since these trees have a lot of issues. why did we plant them in the first place? they provided the city with benefits for decades. they are big and provide storage for carbon which is important to fight climate change and they provide shade and really i think many people think they are a beautiful asset. >> when we identify trees like this for removal and people

protest our decision, we really understand where they are coming from. i got into this job because i love trees. it just breaks my heart to cut down trees, particularly if they are healthy and the issue is a structural flaw. i have also seen first hand what happens when we have failures. we have had a couple of injuries due to tree failures. that is something we can't live with either. it is a challenging situation. we hate to lose mature trees, but public safety has to always good okay. good evening and

welcome to the december 6th, 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 trasvina, commissioner alex lundberg. and we expect commissioner j.r. eppler shortly . also present is deputy city attorney jen huber, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice at the controls as the board's legal assistant. al 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 representing the planning department. matthew green, deputy director, inspection services for the department of building inspection, and chris buck, urban forester representing san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. 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 board's rules of presentation are as follows.

appellant's permit holders and department respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. peter will, affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods for jurisdiction requests. the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. mr. longwe, 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 any questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearings schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sec.gov .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. gheorghe 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 hearings. then the zoom link or three public comment can be provided by telephone call 1669 968 33 and enter webinar. id 83708888150 and sf govtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you are watching the live stream or broadcast now to block your phone number when calling in first star six seven then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for 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. you will have three minutes. 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 sveaborg. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we'll take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically 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 rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or

affirmed, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do. okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so i believe i just got a message from commissioner eppler. let me just check. he will be here shortly, but we can move ahead with our items. okay so, commissioners, we do have one housekeeping item. the parties for item six appeal number 23, dash 052 at 1208 stanton street have come to an agreement that they would like you to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition it be revised to allow for the removal of the subject tree with the requirement that the appellant plant a 36 inch box replacement tree. on the uphill side of the existing tree species to be determined by buff bureau of urban forestry. this motion is made on the basis that the location of the existing tree is the only feasible site for the underground electrical vault, which will provide power to the property and the bureau of urban

forestry supports this outcome. um i believe it's item five. i'm sorry. item five. thank you. yes, you're correct. item five. so moved. okay do we have any public comment on this item? please raise your hands. okay. i don't see any public comment. so on the motion by commissioner lemberg, vice president lopez high commissioner trasvina, president swig. hi. so that motion carries 4 to 0 and the appeal is granted with those conditions. thank you to the parties for working together. so we are now moving on to item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who'd 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 public who wishes to speak on an item that's not on the calendar? mr. bruno, please approach. can you hear me

through this or is it okay? i'm ready to start. my name is mark bruno and i live at 15 nobles alley. it's been commented by the board that you all don't want to hear too much about the same issues over and again. if you feel you've decided it. i don't want to come here over and again. and i wanted to point out here, if you can see the screen overhead, please, it's not that important. it's i can show it to you here, but okay, overhead, please. they were wasting time. this is simply a pause. your time. pause your time. oh, you cut it out. you're giving me back the time? yes, because that was like 15. i have to use the three minutes. i'm sorry. okay overhead, please. govtv it's. it's good to have. okay. he's calling for something else. okay hello. i didn't touch it. so did

you break it? no, i'm just kidding. i didn't break it. oh it looks like it's showing up there. oh, right there. yeah. it's strange. it's weird. sorry about that. well, i have one of the fliers. if you do, you want to pass it down? it's. yeah it's about. you're going to interview the flier is secondary. the fliers, just to say so how are you going to do the time so that i know where i am? i just start over. okay? okay. thanks the fliers.

just to show you what else i'm doing with my life other than coming here because as i'm interviewing john king next week and i'm supposed to have three interesting questions and so far i only have two interesting questions. so there's many reasons for me not to come here. i'm coming because the simple questions asked an important ones asked by this board on september 27th, have yet to be answered by the building department. they were very simple, i remember, and if you go back in time, you'll remember too, because two of you got very passionate involved asking mr. green, why can't we know what else is going on in the building where mr. bruno lives? if there's other illegal work being done, we the board of appeals, would like to know. we think we have the right to know that. so why can't. and it went back and forth and eventually we the board, the building department agreed that you could know that and they would send out a man named robert farrow to find out. he eventually reported after your decision was made in favor of my appeal, the decision was in favor of the appeal that

there's no work being done, no illegal work being done. and yet we have a report here now, now given to all of us, given to the public by mr. green that tells us on this my second page that when mr. farrow went, he only looked at the three units told by the owner to look at. well it's kind of a tautology to say, oh, yeah, you look at these three units that i've just decided to work on, you'll see i haven't started work on them. well, yeah, clearly you hadn't started work, but at that same moment that a coworker of mr. farrow, another employee of the department of building inspection, another plumbing inspector, had already determined that there's a whole bunch of illegal work being done. and mr. allen, that other inspector who inspected it on the 25th of august, is all cited by the report just given to you by mr. green. he has all the knobs in the building and the third or fourth one down, says michael allen, plumbing inspector. and it has this long number, august 25th. that's pretty recent, and it tells you

it's a plumbing violation working outside the scope of a permit. why should anybody in the building have their cake and eat it, too? in other words, you all said to the building department, go ahead and tell mr. owner the permit holder, that he may choose whichever three of the six units he wants to work on. so he chose three that he hadn't worked on yet at all. but he still has the one over here that he's working on illegally by your own record. so now he's really working on for having his cake and eating it too. why wasn't the fourth why wasn't one of the three the building unit he was already working on that would make the most sense. that would be consistent with the code and it would be fair to the people who live there instead. and he now has four units he can work on. it's totally it's nonsensical and it's not consistent with what the board asked the building department to do. thank you. thank you, president wick. mr. green, i don't think your

speakers, your microphone is on. oh, this is this mic. all right, we got dueling mics. i got. i got two mics to choose from. mr. green, you you submitted a document related to our request, but a couple of weeks ago. what? i would like you to do is please give us a clear summary of that document. and what i noticed in the document was a slew of and i'm going to gloss over it, a slew of novels and, and what i was left with was, okay, what now? because sometimes times and this has this is not only has something to do with the subject at hand, but also so just always bugs me in the back of my mind when and it has nothing to do. this is not criticism on the

with d.b. it's just like, what the hell happens when we have these cases where they have an outside standing and they have to deal with that and we're left with that and sometimes i wonder, well, what ever happened to the nof on that case that we found contentious? so so, so what i'd like you to do is, one, summarize for the public and ourselves your letter. but also would you address basically what the hell is going to happen with all those novel where clearly there is there has been some work that is not exactly been, according to the way it's supposed to be. okay. i'm saying from the word illegal. are you asking for no or write a report because this item hasn't been agenda ized yet. i want to advise the commission against having a discussion on it. my recommendation would be that we put it on the agenda for a future meeting so that mr. green

can address it. i'm concerned that we haven't included it on our agenda for this meeting, so we have testimony in public comment. i understand your point of view. we had a submission by mr. green, which is, is part of public comment. so it has been. so can i review my question and ask him not to comment on the ncvhs, but just summarize, acknowledge that there was a letter that he sent and if he would summarize the substance of that letter since it's public information anyway, is that okay ? i think it would be fine for mr. green to summarize the letter and describe what was set forth therein. and i just advise the commission against engaging in a discussion about it or allowing mr. green to respond to the other points made. i think it's perfectly reasonable for him to discuss what was already disclosed. okay great. and which

is posted on our website, the letter. so that's, that's fine as long as the other commissioners don't come in with a bunch of questions back and forth and we get into a big discussion, blah, blah, blah. okay. you got the drill. please so you want me just. you want me to summarize the letter? i'd like you to summary guys. the letter. and i guess you got to leave out the what's going to happen to the noves part. other than, say that i did discuss that in the letter. yeah. okay. as far as you went in the letter then. okay. thank you. um, so this, this, it was an email. actually, it was an email in response to your some of the comments that mr. bruno has made in public comment here, when the main concerns was is well, i don't know which was the main concern, but he did discuss us using the phrase reinstated for the permits, which is the appropriate action. we do that with the permits that come before the board of appeals. all the time. once the appeal is filed, we suspend the permit. after you make your decision, we

either reinstate the permit or we revoke the permit. so the first part of the letter was just correcting that item. the second part of the letter was, if you recall, i agreed to send out a senior building senior plumbing inspector to investigate the property that was subject to the plumbing permit that was originally appealed and i did. i sent one of the senior plumbing, very senior plumbing inspector. he's been there nearly 30 years. he knows the whole process. he went out there with the property owner and he let me know that the work under this permit was in the three units at the front of the property, the ones facing union street. he also said there was no other work on at the time . mr. bruno disputed that. whether whether mr. or inspector farrell had gone to his unit, i agreed. i thought it'd be best.

okay, i'll go out there with mr. farrell and meet mr. bruno. just so there's no confusion and no miscommunication. we did have an inspection scheduled. unfortunately, it had to be canceled. i say in the letter that whenever mr. bruno is ready, i'll be happy to go out there. then we mentioned the. the there are several notices of violation at this property. a current one's six. we have one order of abatement for the one about the wall at the basement. i know mr. in previous things previous meetings mr. bruno has shown pictures of this wall role. the plaster has been removed. that is a violation. we have no violation and it's gone through the code enforcement process. there are a couple other notice of violation from our housing inspectors division for more general maintenance issues. those two are still outstanding. actually, all five more of those violations are outstanding too. i've been set up for the code enforcement process, meaning there's going to be hearings and, you know, the work is not done. another order of abatement will be placed against the property. i

attached all the notices of violation and the complaint data sheets explaining the code history or sorry, the complaint history, the process is i would be happy to talk about what a director's hearing is and what that actually means, if that's okay. i did mention it in my letter. sure and also, what you might want to define is code enforcement and the process of code enforcement. sure is that fair? thank you so i'll just start at the beginning of a general case. say someone files a complaint, an inspector will go out and investigate if they find that the complaint is valid, they'll write what's called a notice of violation. in general, you'll give a set amount of time and to make the corrections, it's generally 30 days. the corrections may or may not require a building permit or a plumbing permit or electrical permit, depending on the violations. if at the end of

that 30 days or other time frame, the work is not done, what we'll do is we'll send a warning letter to the property owner if he still doesn't heed the property, the warning letter will set this case up for what we call a director's hearing. now, a hearing. it's a public hearing at the department of building inspection. we notify everybody with any interest in the property, meaning the property owners, the lenders, anybody with a recorded interest in the property. it's a public hearing. we want the owners can show up for any any anybody else can comment. in any case, there's a director's hearing. officer he has several options of once the case is heard, he can return the case to staff if he thinks it could be resolved easily, he can give an advisement, say a 30 day advisement, meaning you're on the clock now. make all these corrections with permits signed off within 30 days. otherwise, in order of abatement is going to be issued. now, the order of abatement is a recorded document against the property. it's recorded against the property.

once it's recorded, the property owner is responsible for all the assessments, the costs accrued by the department setting up the case. the order of abatement won't be lifted until all the all the work is completed and all the assessments are costs are paid. that's that's one tool we have. the next step is these order of abatements will stay there until the property owner makes a corrections, pays all the assessments, then we will revoke the order of abatement. so you might be thinking, well, they could just not make the corrections and the order is going to stay there forever. we have we have other tools as well. after 180 days, we can notify the franchise tax board that this is a substandard building, meaning you can't you can't write off any expenses or taxes, stuff like that. that's one tool we have. we also have we have a litigation committee within the department of building inspection. if we think cases are serious enough, we'll refer to the city attorney.

sorry we'll refer to our building inspection commission litigation committee, and they can decide whether they want to refer this to the city attorney for further litigation in and the litigation would be the final step or our biggest hammer. thank you very much. okay thank you. thank you. is there any further general public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see anybody on zoom. i'm sorry. you already had your opportunity. lawyer told. us. could be better. i might. how is it going? well, you can contact me tomorrow and. and i will have a discussion with president swig . okay. thank you. okay so i don't see any further. general public comments. so we're going to move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. birx. any comments? and questions? okay. happy hanukkah to all of you. starting tomorrow for the week and have a

merry, merry christmas season. okay john trasvina. thank you, president swig for following up on the previous matter. and it would be my hope that we can schedule a further discussion agendize it for next week's meeting rather than january. thank you. is there any public comment on this item you can provide public comment now. okay . mr. green mentions in his letter to you of two days ago, which i just received this morning, that we had a pleasant talk, which we did at the building department, and i always have pleasant talks with mr. green and i learn things as well. i was there to meet with code enforcement. so since he brought up the words code enforcement, i will tell you that they are the ones who told

me, oh, look, here is the direction to the world from the building department. it says revision to regular permit typed out for all of us to read from the building department. if your permit was issued and you need to make revision as it later says, if it's from the board of appeals, as revisions from this board, you must apply for a new permit. so i have every right to be questioning as a non-attorney me why it was the norm to call it a reinstatement. it could be called a reinstatement. i think it's incorrect. it's a misuse of the term reinstatement in the law because here in the building department's warning to two permit holders, if it needs to be if you need to make revisions, you must apply for a new permit. the other thing they showed me, i'm sorry, i don't have my glasses, but i can tell you here it says i'm sorry. i need my i pause time. and i'll

be brief. so the point is, they also showed me plumbing, mechanical permit issuance and inspection fees. this is an amendment to the current building code which applies to all the codes. it's on pages 52 and 53, a separate permit is required for each structure for. can you read these under here? now it's overhead. yeah. i mean, if it works, i don't know if it's working. i got a shall i leave this with you. it's i have a copy of it. i mean you can all see it because it's, it's from the building code pages 52 and 53 pointed out to me by the code enforcement group, plumbing mechanical permit issuance and inspection fees, a permit application shall show a complete itemization of the proposed scope of the work and select the appropriate fee category. okay. b this is what i'm pointing out and what was pointed out to me. a separate permit is required. this is for plumbing for each structure condom arnhem condominium unit,

existing apartment unit, high rise office floor suite or tenant space in a modern city which we hope we all live in. i think we do. it is not surprising to me that by now, in 2023, i'm not the first person in the history of san francisco who has had these issues where a landlord says, oh, i'm just doing a 15 nobles might be six, might be five, might be three units, might be the basement, might be the illegal adu. i don't know, whatever. i feel like because i'm in charge. that was the way the world was in the 19th century and maybe through post world war two. certainly since 2000, i would think that that the building department has gotten itself together and the codified the codifiers, the legislators and they have indeed done that by answering the question that would have prevent me from ever having this issue with my landlord, so-called permit holder, to begin with. if this had been followed, meaning a separate permit is required for each structure for a

condominium unit, existing apartment unit. et cetera. we wouldn't have had this issue. the city is telling the permit holder to do it right, and it wasn't done right. thank you. thank you. okay. thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion. possible adoption are the minutes of the november 15th, 2023 meeting commissioners do have a motion or comments. i move that we approve the minutes as presented . thank you. okay on that motion, vice president lopez. hi, commissioner trevino. hi, commissioner lundberg. hi, president swig. hi. so that motion carries 5 to 0 and the minutes are adopt did so we are now moving on to item number four. this is jurisdiction request number 23, dash four, subject property at 99 saint germain avenue. letter from edward g. requester asking that the board take jurisdiction over

alteration permit number 2022 0804 9876, which was issued on october 5th, 2023. the appeal period ended on october 20th, 2023, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on november 6th. the permit holder is lisa and patrice gauthier. the permit description install a new dumbwaiter elevator, including all structural supports as needed. add structurally reinforce concrete retaining wall and infill concrete slab, rip face stucco wall below stairs, waterproofing over mechanical room and tile replacement as needed area drains, plans, traveling with permit number 2022 08039878. thank you. and mr. can you please remind the board, please what the standard is and what we are expected to. okay, so how how we are expected to reach a decision or the standard for the decision please the requester

has to show that the city intends finally or inadvertently caused tim to be late in filing an appeal. and so that that takes four votes in order to get that granted. thank you. thank you. welcome mr. yee, you have three minutes. i've been here so many times that i can't fathom the hours that i have addressed this board, number one. number two, i am a physician and this crisis of has made me a specialist event crisis, crisis, personal crisis. i have been so generous to my neighbor. and unfortunately, unfortunately, the board has been complicit to

my understanding of what are my rights. i was not given we were not given our neighbors were not given the permit of what was to be done. and now this has happened many years ago. and unfortunately for me, i turn a blind eye. okay my fault, my line, because i'm a physician. my raison d'etre is not to harm people. i took an oath, but unfortunately, over the last seven years since the guilty years, they have harmed us in so many ways. i i probably can spend the next 12 hours delivering this. and i conjured this concept to the judge curtis

kiernan, last week. this is legalized terrorism. um, i mean, my wife and i have been terrorized so many times and i will more than happy to present to the board a litany of pictures where we have been terrorized. i ask simply that maybe, maybe you can have some empathy, maybe not sympathy, empathy, empathy for us. because the last seven years it's been bombarded, admit of issues, notably less than a year ago, 30s go ahead. you have 30s. okay. three a year ago i was assaulted and this past month i was robbed by the guilt. tears

on multiple multiple elements of private property now is asymmetrical warfare. i'm you know, i'm i'm 74 years old. i'm sorry. you know, they have commandeer commandeer of so much of the easement areas which i'd be more than happy to deliver. thank you. that's time. thank you. thank you, mr. we have some questions from president swig, commissioner lundberg and commissioner trevino, president swig. sorry dr. lee, i am i'm probably, as the senior member of this panel, i we are we are. we've met before, as you've been in in front of us, because i've i'm familiar with your case and i'm sorry for your pain. the what we and i asked miss rosenberg about what is the standard that we have to make

based on our decision on tonight and that is that the city aired or or was late or had a problem in getting out the proper notice . to for you to appeal this this permit. and that's how we have to base our decision on. i know you've gone through a lot of stuff. i've been witness to your a lot of stuff. i've read the briefs. but i have to ask you the direct question because that's the only way that we can make a decision. did the city air in in getting in noticing you and cause you to miss the opportunity to appeal this permit? absolutely. in what way? and also in previous events, just just i'm i'm not debate this. i'm just saying absolutely . i'm trying to be empathetic and understand that. you can see

because i've i've i've lived this this case from before. so can you tell us, please, how the city aired and abused your your process of appealing this permit? my understanding is that the surrounding community, including myself, should be notified. we were never, never, never notified. okay and then i'll ask in follow up to planning or dba, whose jurisdiction it is. tell us about the notification process. so i just ask them, thank you. i'm going to yield to commissioner trevino. thank you, president swig, and thank you, dr. for your testimony. if i could just follow up

notification of what. they're doing, a planning of multiple egress on the easement area. so we were never notified. in fact, that during our 311 discussion on they never addressed the issues that i had asked. our concern that is they've had egress into the easement area to use the sport term. we were boxed out. we were boxed out in going forward with our ada elevator enlargement on our side of the property. okay. dr. you asked you about that when you said to president swig you were not notified and neither were other residents, other neighbors

, as can we expect anybody else to testify by who was similarly harmed or just you? tonight i believe the protocol is simply to notify anybody. everybody. during that 150ft surround ending. if there is more debate or public interest, it and that's what i'm okay going back i'm just answering the question simply we were not notified. i have asked my neighbors. we were not notified. okay. thank you, commissioner lundberg. thank you, dr. ye, i'm struggling a little bit here because the your neighbors in their brief sighted to and provided a copy of the.

permit that was actually signed by your wife that is the what we're calling a mirror permit that because this to conduct this work, it requires two permits, one for your property and one for the neighbor's property. and they provided a permit that was signed by your wife on behalf of your property. is that not did did that not happen or how what am i missing here? unfortunately my wife is at an age where we don't communicate well. unfortunately, i'm telling you things that very private. so i was hoping that she would be here tonight at because of our aging elements, her mental issues, my physical issues, but nevertheless, i'm here to argue, not argue, to deliberate out my concerns of

not being informed. okay thank you. okay. thank you. you can be seated. thank you. okay. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holders. emily. charlie, welcome. you have three minutes. thank you. and good evening. my name is emily. charlie, i have the pleasure of representing the go tos. before i begin, i would like to categorically deny claims of robbery or any other criminal activity that is as categorically false as dr. yee's claim that he was not notified. dr. yee's request that this body retake jurisdiction often does not even purport to meet the applicable standards, and he was able to offer nothing here today to cure that defect in his request. in addition, the jurisdictional request completely lacks merit. the yee's signed off on the merit.

the permit application that, as you noted, is a mere application. and it's not just that mrs. yee signed off on this . both dr. and mrs. yee represented to judge cano that they were willing to do so in our contempt proceedings in addition, the application that they're seeking right now that this body retake jurisdiction lacks merit because they were court ordered to facilitate the permit application that is at issue here. finally, the alleged concern that dr. yee now expresses in his jurisdiction requests were already addressed in full, not only by his engineer, but also by the court as commissioner trasvina said, the last time we appeared before this body in response to another of these actions, quote, the gautier's have suffered enough, end quote. so the facts here are clear as described in our response and also within the city's own records. so frankly, unless there are any questions, i see no reason to belabor this hearing or expend any more time or energy to the detriment of my

clients, i'll close with commissioner lopez's note last time that, quote, this has gone on long enough. okay. thank you. i don't see any questions at this point. so we will hear from the planning department at. good evening, president swig, vice president lopez, members of the board. i'm tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. this is a jurisdictional request from dr. edward lee for building permit number 2022 08049876. this permit was issued on october the fifth, 2023. to lisa and patrice gauthier, the property owners of 99 saint germain, dr. yee, who is the adjacent neighbor at 95, saint germain, stated that he had missed a deadline for filing an appeal because he was staying

in place and never got the posting. the scope of work for the permit is to install a new elevator at the front of the property because as the elevator will straddle both 95 and 99, saint germain, both owners, the gautier's and the yee's, had to consent and submit separate permits for the elevator project . the yee's provided authorization, so both permits permit ending in 9876 for the gautier's and the permit ending in 9878 for the yee's were filed on the same day and concurrently reviewed, approved and issued under the same timeline based on planning department's record mail. notices for the new elevators were sent to all owners and residents within 100ft radius of the property. in preparation for this hearing tonight, i double checked and confirm that the yee's were included in the list for the mail. notice in addition, we

have a signed affidavit from the gautier's that the 311 poster was posted on the property for 30 days between december 16th, 2022 through january 16th, 2023. during this 30 day review period , the planner did not receive any orders for the permit. while dr. lee stated that he had safety concerns about the new elevator, he did not provide further details. he also did not provide any evidence as to how the city, intentionally or inadvertently caused him to be late in filing an appeal. dr. lee had multiple opportunity to object to the permit. however he did not object when the opportunity rs were made available to him or do so in a timely manner. while i understand dr. yee still has concerns for the for the permit, the permit was issued correctly. as such, the department is asking the board to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently

cause the requester to be late in filing the appeal. that concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. thank you, president swig. i'm i'm just going to ask the obvious. expecting an affirmative question. so i heard there was a letter mailed. there was a posting on there was additional commentary. and so it wasn't exactly there was nothing that got in the way of notifying the doctor about this permit. right the permit triggered section 311 neighborhood notification. that was done. we have a mailing list. dr. yee is on this list. we have a email from the third party vendor repo mail who does the mailing stating that the mail did go out on december 16th and it ran for 30 days and no

daca was filed during that 30 day period. and so all the boxes were checked metaphorically, all the boxes were checked. there's nothing, i believe. so we didn't see any errors made on our part by the city in regarding this permit. right. so the thing that makes me scratch my head because we've been involved in quite a few lately where, you know, the project is touching both, both property lines and so there's been two recently where one didn't go along with, you know, one went along with issuing the permit. but the one that that were the project touched the other property line. it didn't. and therefore that we learned about you can't have a permit unless both sides do it in this case, both sides did it, both sides signed it. and but how how can you appeal a permit that you actually filed for this is what how does that happen? well, there are two permits. okay. okay. one for each property. but it's for the same elevator. it's only one elevator. so the city

process concurrently, both of these permits under the same time line. they cross reference each other right. so for the same project, doing the same scope, same everything, same set of plans, same set of plans and both parties sign off on this permit. yet one could actually appeal the other guy's permit even though they signed off on the same permit. basically. possibly. i mean, it's kind of quizzical, isn't it? i, i can't answer that. i mean, the permit is appealable by anybody, right? it is a little strange. strange if you want to appeal something that you gave authorization to go forward with just asking. i'm just confused how how can somebody who signs off on exactly the same permit challenge the same permit? that's certainly not a question for me. okay. i was just wondering and but more importantly, all the boxes were checked. everything was the notification, notification, notification timely fashion

signs posted. no issues on your from your point of view. yes. from from my research. okay. thanks very much. thank you. commissioner trevino has a question for miss tam. thank you for your testimony and covering so many aspects of this. are you familiar with judge cano's order from 2020? i'm not super familiar. i did see some attachments in the response brief. i'm not intimately familiar with all the details, but i do know that there's been a number of court proceedings related to the elevator and the easement between these two parties. so i want to read from part of the order. it's on page 22 of the 64 page of submissions , and it says the ees shall not object to the city issuing permits necessary to build the replacement elevator described below in section three b, which talks about the replacement

elevator. does that language apply to this permit and elevator? if you are aware, i would think so, because this is only one elevator. this is the same one that's being the subject that's discussed and perhaps this could be a question for the counsel for the permit holder. i may ask that. i was hoping you might be able to shed some light on it. and you have. so thank you. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. good evening again, commissioners. matthew green representing the department of building inspection. i don't have much to add. there are two building permits here, one for 95 saint germain, one for 99 saint germain. it's the exact same language on both permit applications. it shares one set of plans. it went through the whole process concurrently with the same plan checkers at each stage. the appellant's wife did sign the original permit

application. i verified her signature with another permit application from previously. i would concur with tina tan from the planning department. i don't think there's any grounds for jurisdiction and encourage you to turn down the request. i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. i don't see any questions. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see anyone on zoom and commissioners. trevino, you said before you wanted to ask a question of permit holders council or because we're going to move on. i was going to submit this since we don't have any public comment. there's no rebuttal for there's no rebuttal. then i don't need i don't have any to ask the question. okay. thank you. so there's no public comment. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioners anybody want to comment on this or make a motion? somebody want to push the button. commissioner

tasmania i will move to deny the request for jurisdiction on the grounds that there has been no testimony that the city took any action or failed to take action to deny any rights of the mover of the any any rights of the requester. okay okay. so the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to be late in filing the appeal. that's what i heard. okay. thank you. so on that motion, vice president lopez, a commissioner lundberg, a commissioner eppler a present swing. so that motion carries 5 to 0 and the request is denied. so we are now moving on to item number six. this is a special item discussion of possible action on october 17th, 2023, the board of supervisors discontinued remote public

comment by members of the public except as necessary for disability accommodations. see section 1.3.3 of the board of supervisors rules of order and board of supervisors. file number 231020. the instructions from the mayor's office are that all commissioners shall also adopt the board of supervisors new rule and not allow remote public comment except when necessary, to accommodate a disability. the mayor's office has further directed that all presenters from departments shall attend commission meetings in person. the board will consider whether to end remote public comment except as necessary for a disability accommodation. the board will also consider whether to require department representatives and parties to attend meetings in person and to end remote meeting participation, participate ation for such persons except as necessary for a disability accommodation. so. president swig, did you want to start off the conversation? sure commissioners, i strongly

recommend that you accept the mayor's direction on this. this request that the grounds my view on it is that prior to covid, the way the mayor's requesting that we conduct our business was the standard operating procedure . it worked well. i didn't feel that prior, both in serving on this commission and prior to that, the redevelopment agency commission, that any member of the public really was harmed in any way by having to show up. and no member of the public, if they had a disability or something that justified a remote participation, was ever resisted from enjoying that liberty and that opportunity. me so i, i would be in support of the mayor's request. quest and,

and so we can go back to the future and go, go back to what i consider standard operating procedure, pre-covid. commissioner lambert thank you, president swig i have a very different opinion on this. i've been on this board about a year and a half now, and certainly remote public comment and remote appearances have been the standard the entire time i've been on this board. and i just don't see any downside to keeping it. i don't you know, i think there's any number of reasons that somebody might have of above and beyond a disability accommodation that would lead to somebody potentially not wanting to appear in person to provide public comment, not to mention the actual disability rights and disability access portion of this which obviously would remain intact anyway. but the fact is that we have we have all

the technology set up and we've been successfully using it for several years and proceeding my time on this board as well. i will also add that i was well, i know i can't say that, but. it is my understanding thing that that the mayor's request is not a mandate on us. and i because it's not a mandate on us. i would i would be pretty resistant to ending remote public comment and remote appearances and in fact, i would be in favor of increasing the ability to appear remotely, although certainly i think it's a good idea for people to appear in person when whenever possible . and i certainly appreciate it having, you know, either parties or public commenters in the hearing room with us. and i think that does add. but i think there's any number of reasons why why allowing to continue

remote public comment is a good idea. and really no active downside. to it either. so that's that's my stance on this and i would not be supportive of a motion to end public comment. commissioner transylvania thank you president swig and i would like to note that under the text of the special item, this seems to be precipitated from an action taken by the board of supervisors, which i fully supported because i saw and heard and we all heard the abusive nature of some of the non non present members of the community city who spoke with profanity and other ways to at the board meetings, board of supervisors meetings that has never been the problem here. in fact, as commissioner lehmberg

points out, i and i agree the ability for members of the public to participate in our proceedings is only enhanced by by this use of technology of being being available for virtually. i also would well, i appreciate getting a instructions from the mayor and i certainly would strongly very much hesitate declining the mayor's request or instruct or direction, however it is described. and i think that we are hurt the quality of our decisions is harmed, not not only when we don't get full public testimony, but also when we don't get testimony from the departments. and there have been many times in many cases where we've had virtual testimony from the experts, from various departments, not just dvi and

planning, but also from the people who do the smoking cases and the state environmental people. and we start our meetings at 5 p.m. that's after the traditional workday for most city employees is now the managers, the leaders that we see every who come before us, every every time that that's part of the job is to is chris buck. and tina. et cetera. but for the for the experts, i think we should do at least find out what the impact of this of our requiring them to be here in person may be at 6:00, maybe at 9:00. they don't know. but right now they're able to monitor the hearing and they're able to call in when and if they are needed. and i think that's an accommodation, an appropriate one to our city employees. and it's one that i would i would want to before we voted for this, i would want to ask the departments how it affects them.

if we if we required every everybody to be here in person. so my view right now is very close to commissioner lundberg's that to not move forward on this at tonight's meeting. anybody else. thank you. i i have a tendency to agree with commissioner lehmberg inconvenient. i do have have some security concern because the decision by the board was born out of bad acts that were taking place there were i have been in an eastern neighborhoods community advisory committee that was zoom bombed and it was a very disruptive and disturbing experience. and so we certainly need to have protocols in place to minimize any potential disruption that could occur. but it you know, it's i do value people coming in in public. and

i do value when in particular the city agencies and other other folks whose profession it is to provide this information. do come in public. but i do appreciate that the availability of the public testimony that we've been able to received as a result of the remote accommodation. and so i'm a little bit more on the fence of this, but but i'm don't i mean, the argument to go to a full in-person has not been presented to us. we were just had it directed to us and you know so to make that change in the absence of a rationale as to why we might do it, i'm hesitant to make a move, you know, perhaps at this time, until that rationale has established itself in mr. lopez. thank you. i would say i'm excuse me, i guess i'm a little bit it's it sounds like

i'm a little bit closer to commissioner eppler's position of kind of seeing the merit of both sides. i do think that we lose something by not having folks here in person on and i think there's something to be said for as as much as i you know celebrate and welcome public comment but i think sometimes we may have made it too easy for folks who maybe have only a marginal interest to chime in. and i think there's something to be said for requiring you know, putting your boots on and making making your way to city hall if you really have an interest in in the matter before us. and i think that's something is lost when there communications issues and

an inability to you know appreciate the nuance of facial expressions and back and forth much more easily. um i think the standard of in-person or disability seems like like a pretty stark kind of binary set up to me. and i think, you know, just going back to a pre-covid reality, you know, in, in a way kind of overlooks some of the lessons of covid, which which are which are that there are public health concerns. you know, other than that one specific covid, you know, era or breakout that that that, you know, we're thankfully be in much better shape, you know in

terms of where we are now vis a vis covid. but i think if there is if there is flexibility, which it sounds like this is a directive of request, not a mandate, then maybe a way to find a middle ground is to say, you know, presumption of in-person in. but maybe we brought in that exception to include other things other than disability accommodations, needs because i do think that there is merit and benefit to having folks in the room as opposed to, you, you know, dialing in. and yet, you know, public health concerns also, you know, life life happens. circumstances happen. these things are

scheduled in a way that doesn't unlike with the parties is where there is, you know, input. i think there are scenarios to where life comes up for a member of the public. they didn't have a say on when our hearing would be scheduled, but it doesn't it you know, take away from the fact that they do have a significant public interest. they do want to have that point presented in a way that's, you know, more pronounced than just simply sending an email to be included in the packet, in the record. and so i feel like i can envision something with, you know, a pre, you know, prior request requirement or something like that with some explanation of those circumstance chances, something like that. that's just thinking out loud. but but you know, default in person absent a

disability does seems like it's not taking account of the lessons learned from covid and i think the benefits that we've seen where by and large it has been, i think a net positive without the same kind of zoom bombing issues that other bodies of experience. so i think there may be a middle ground there. commissioner lambert, i just i just want to add, i guess i been having a hard time forming this thought, but. it was something along the lines of the fact that, you know, even though that the formal governmental ill health, public health emergency is over in in regards to covid, i know several people with covid

right now as we speak who as of today, covid is not over. it seems like it's here to stay. but of course, as we all know, covid is not the only disease out there either. respiratory illnesses have taken a pretty sharp spike up. and i feel that a move to restrict remote public comment is in potentially encouraging people who do have a legitimate interest in a hearing to say, oh, well, i really want to come to this hearing, so i'm going to come and potentially endanger the health of other people. whereas if they have an option to just appear remotely for either as a party or as a public commenter, you know, that risk kind of dissipates because i think people know more or less at this point that if they have some sort of respiratory illness going on, that you avoid going out in public, you avoid going into public places with lots of

people in them and, you know, these problems are not only not going away, but they seem to be getting worse every for ever. increasingly worse. and this is a society wide issue. this isn't a san francisco issue or a government issue or or, you know, really anything specific to this body at all. but this is more just a, you know, a worldwide everyone issue. and again, it really just boils down to the fact that we already have all the technology in place and we have been successfully using it for three plus years, three and a half years at this point since the pandemic started. i don't know. i wasn't here for what happened in march 2020, but it is my understanding that the city picked up on its technology requirements pretty quickly when the pandemic started and i just think it would be a shame to see all of that go away. you know, i

didn't i certainly saw the precipitating event that led to this at the board of supervisors. didn't agree with it there either, though, you know, we don't have any control over that. but it seems, as you know, i'm just always going to be pro access, pro public and even what vice president lopez suggested in regard to, you know, some sort of preregistration requirement. you know, i feel like a lot of people kind of decide last minute that they want to that they care about an issue or want to speak on an issue. and that precludes those people's participation or they you know, they test positive for covid 20 minutes before the meeting starts. there's just so many potential. all things to consider here that i feel like setting any sort of rule up kind of gets in the way of schaeffler

. and i. and i think the other the other question that we have to ask ourselves is, do we have a different standard or a different rule for the parties and the department heads versus the general public? i do feel that the general public, we should have probably the least impediment to participation that we can tolerate and we can discuss what that level of toleration is. but for the for the parties in the departments, it feels like, you know, perhaps there should be because those are the folks from which we do perhaps gain the most in terms of knowledge from their in-person presentation. and we get the best interaction. they're the ones with which we need to have a, you know, a better face to face experience, perhaps. there might be a difference in the way that we think about those two different groups. that's why i've kind of held back. i see merit in

everybody's commentary. i think the i understand and the commentary from the commissioners who the real life is that yeah, you test positive at 3:00 in the afternoon. you want to talk or you're listening to the hearing and you go, what? i need to comment. and i see your points. i see your points. well and i'm a little bit more flexible on that. what i think where i've had my biggest issues in the remote active party is the parties. i think commissioner eppler brings up the my biggest issue is that i really think that the parties should be be in the room and

presenting for all the reasons i don't want to be redundant to everything you said. i agree with. so i, i would be a little bit more flexible on on the points raised by the other commissioners in support of keeping public comment open until we get into a hopefully we'll never get into that situation of having people be inappropriate but what i would like the commission to consider is that we get the parties back in the room. if you had to be in i'm not a lawyer, you guys are. you know, you're actually know what to do. you're actually trained to do something. but if you were going to into a formal court situation, you'd show up and because you are you are principals and you would show up, you wouldn't call it in. so i feel that this is a formal situation that the parties have

filed. one against the other or whatever. and so i, i would like to us to adjust that behavior to back to the standard operating procedure that existed in this room prior to covid. and that is that the principal parties show up in person and if they would like to appeal or or ask for special consideration for appropriate reasons, that that they appeal to the executive director, executive director talks to the president and the president deals with that request accordingly. but that would be a pretty a pretty high bar. so that's i would that's my point of view on this. so far. commissioner trevino thank you. president swig particularly for considering and listening to the various perspectives that we have. i'm if, if we feel that we

can just resolve this matter by by solely dealing with the parties, i could see us doing something tonight. otherwise i think it would be appropriate to ask the staff to come up with some guidelines that takes into account the technology, the issues of disability. i'm not sure how how how the staff can say yes or no to someone who calls up and says, i have a disability, is it a temporary disability? is it a ada recognized disability? she is she going to be second guessed by by by someone? i wouldn't necessarily want to put that burden on, but i think it's useful if we're going to go down the road to then to really specify. it takes some time to do that. and i'm sure the city attorney would want to weigh in. so i would urge us to. are you when you're we i think we are

you relating to parties or are you relating to the public at large when you when you say if somebody calls up and says, i have a disability, are you talking in this context? i think i think either one i do think that parties are able to have been able to at accurately present themselves to us and present their case virtually. i also know that some of their experts, whether it's an attorney or whether it's an architect, may or may not be here in san francisco. and if we're requiring the expert to be here, that's an added cost for either a neighbor or either the appellant or or the permit holder. so i do think there are many values in many reasonable reasons to have and allow for even the parties to be here virtually. and so i think it does it does take some serious

thought. i appreciate all the serious thought that's been given. that's why i'm suggesting that that we have staff look at this and come back with a report to guide us forward. make sure you. thank you, commissioner lundberg. thank you. i just wanted to respond to something you said, president swig and. as somebody who is both a practicing litigator who does cases in probably 20 different counties in california, and as somebody with an invisible disability with unpredictable symptoms and unpredictable ways that it comes up in my life, one i will say nearly all of the state courts in california still provide. it's almost exclusively on zoom still in almost every court in california in it's i know, i believe federal courts have moved back to in-person,

but state courts have not, by and large. and in regard to the disability portion, you know, i've always known that it was possible to request disability accommodations. i'm an attorney. i went to law school. i know the law on this. i know how it works. i know how the systems work. i'm in a very privileged position with that. so that being said, if i had to do that process every time i wanted to appear remotely to a proceeding rather than just having the option or actually in many cases, the by default being able to appear remotely in court, not to mention the geographical portion of it that i appear in court in los angeles or san jose or all these places that are not geographically close to where i am here in san francisco, not even counting the geographical piece to it. we're hoping that most of the people involved in most of the things here are in indeed in san francisco. so but

some property owners don't live in san francisco. a lot of the attorneys aren't in san francisco who appear before us. many most of them are, i would say, but not all of them. and you know. it is, although it provides although disability accommodations do provide a path for disabled people to receive those accommodations as it's putting quite a bit of burden on them. and i you know, and again, if we just have it available by default, that burden is dissipated, it disappears. it's not it it's no longer a burden. it's no longer a hurdle for people to overcome. and being disabled is not the only valid reason why you wouldn't want to appear. why why you would want to appear remotely. and that applies to parties as well. department head department representatives. i mean, in my

experience, they always show up in person anyway. i don't mean with a few notable exceptions. when we had the sunset toxics case, when we had all sorts of, you know, unusual or not, our usual set of governmental agencies appearing here. but for that second hearing, they actually did all come anyway. and the only reason they didn't for that first hearing was because it was kind of a last minute request that we had had kind of sprung upon them, that they appear an id they did appear the second time. so department heads seem mean. the practice seems to be that they show up in person anyway. i've never seen mr. green or ms. tam or mr. buck appear on zoom. they're always here in person. and if they were unwell but had a case on the agenda, i'd want them to. i would much prefer that they be able to appear remotely than we have to reschedule the hearing and inconvenience all the rest of the people involved in that case too. and that's a very real practical consideration too. you

know, if they have a light cold and don't want to come in and get everybody sick, but, you know, and can still otherwise testify, but just don't want to do it in the hearing room, i would so much rather have that. and that's even for the department heads who i think are under the most duty to appear in person. and again, i agree with what other commissioners have said. i vastly prefer it when people show up in person. i definitely don't want to discourage anyone from appearing in person, and i do think it often has a greater impact on us as a body when somebody does appear in person as opposed to appearing remotely. not to say that it has any less weight or that we don't consider what people are appearing remotely say. but it is you know, we get that human connection aspect when people appear in person that is more challenging to get with remote appearances. but that what we're being asked to do is set a policy as to what can or cannot be done here, both in regard to public comment and

in regard to department department representatives and to parties and just having that option. and again, i encourage anybody who has a case before us to appear in person, if you can, that's i think i think we all agree on that. on that point, the question is whether we should require them to show up in person and make them jump through hoops if they don't or cannot appear in person. and that to me is what the issue before us is. commissioner lopez . i guess before i chime in again, a couple of points of information. what's the binding nature of this action? could we take an action tonight and iterate in a couple of meetings? i'm sorry, we're not changing any rules technically because we never did modify the rules to

allow for remote participation. it's been a practice we could take a motion and it would it would just indicate the board's direction. you know what they want to allow? i mean, or you could do nothing. and we can continue with the status quo. but if you want to make an affirmative motion, you can is it is it binding? i don't think so. really. it's just kind of setting forth the board's position. right. and if you later want to change it, if circumstances change, it's you can do that. and if you want to modify the written rules, there are some procedures we have to go through. there's ten days notice. et cetera. et cetera. we'd have to publish it. but right now, i think you're just making thing you would be expressing the board's position on whether or not to allow remote public comment, remote participation in by the parties and department representatives. right i guess. thank you. what

the outcome that that makes sense to me that i'll throw out there is i do think there's a distinction between parties, departments and the public. with respect to parties. i i don't see it as too much of a hoop or a barrier to, to express the policy that they're expected to be here in person. and if they have a disability or another extenuating circumstance that they have to let us know beforehand that they can't be here in person. i think the parties are are engaged with us to schedule the hearings. they have to provide. they're available pretty for the hearing. and i think we can communicate to them that, hey, there's an expectation that you

be at the hearing in person. and if that that expectation cannot be met, you have. to let us know beforehand. that doesn't seem like too much to ask to me. i think similarly with respect to the department's case, at least with our you know, frequent customers, it doesn't seem to too much to ask to me for them to be expected to be here in person absent extenuating circumstances. i think their there there's even a distinction that can be drawn as between again the frequent customers of planning, you know, dpa. yeah buff you know the frequent the usual suspects as as compared to the a department that's maybe not you