okay. good evening and welcome to the august 28th, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president jose lopez will be the presiding officer tonight, and he's joined by vice president alex lumber, commissioner rick zweig, commissioner john trevino, and commissioner j.r. epler. 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. up front is tina tam, the deputy zoning administrator representing the planning department and joining us via zoom is kevin birmingham, acting chief building inspector with the department of building inspection. we will also have

william wilcox, the tax exempt bond program manager, with the mayor's office of housing and community development, and haney game plan checker with san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping. 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. appellant's permit 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 the 7 or 3 minute periods for jurisdiction requests, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal, and 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 if the agenda is long, or if there are a large number of speakers. mr. longway, 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 jurisdiction request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please email staff at board of appeals at sfgov. org now public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. sfgovtv 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 sfgovtv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watch the hearing on tv, go to sfgovtv 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 sfgovtv. forward slash voa now. public comment can be provided in three ways one in person, two via zoom. go to our website, click on this hearing date and then the zoom link three public comment can be provided by telephone call 1669 968 33 and enter webinar id 845 6765 1980. and again sfgovtv 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, i'll 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 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 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 seconds 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's 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 sfgov .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 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 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 i do? okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so item number one 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. and i see miss shields is here for general public comment. good evening. good evening. george when i spoke two weeks ago at the informational hearing on ab 1114, i wanted to have a discussion with from staff of some of the specific examples of the types of permits that the board would no longer hear if

the members read my email about the project, soon to be before the planning commission. that is one type of project. i was thinking about. although it is seeking a coa, i would imagine that there could be other permits that the board would hear for this or a similar project that may not be seeking a coa. all all permits. excuse me, that would have come before this board historically, but now they won't. no de novo, no second bite of the apple, no redress for neighbors. if redress is needed. neighbors are being shut out as i wrote in the email about this particular project, this is a very important since planning does not oversee issues of foundations or excavations in their review. and now, once the requirements are satisfied and the planning approval letter is issued by the planning staff, unless a doctor is timely filed, the project proceeds and while no one wants to see affordable housing thwarted, projects like the one in the email are not

affordable housing in detail. this project proposes to remove over 2300yd!t of earth from the 25 by 112 foot lot, demolishing a 1300 square foot home and constructing a 7200 square foot home. single family homes a project on my block removed 1400yd!t, going 12ft deep on a 7 by 114 lot. there were at least 40 of those really, really large dump trucks carting away all that soil to create the approved second unit, neighbors filed an appeal and the board issued a special conditions permit. and it's not a second unit. it's all one house. this board has a very important role to play that the state ripped away. i agree with miss hester's suggestion from two weeks ago that the board hold another hearing on this after labor day, not just the one in the sleepy month of august. and i encourage the members of this board who have a

lot of knowledge and experience, to provide input to director hillis and his staff on the objective design standards that are now being developed. the board has valuable expertise that should be part of the process and just in case you didn't get to see my email attachments, can i have the overhead real overhead, please? oh, thank you. so you can see there oops how deep it's going down right there 30ft. thank you very much. have a good evening. thank you. and i do hope you'll think about contacting director hillis and participating in the objective design standards. thanks a lot. thank you. is there anyone else in the room who would like to provide general public comment? is there anyone on zoom who would like to provide general public comment? okay, i don't see any. so we're going to move on to item number two. commissioner comments and

questions, good evening everybody. i will open up, to say that i understand that this is the last meeting in which this body will, will have the presence of commissioner levy, and i just wanted to thank you, commissioner, for your service. it's been a pleasure serving alongside you, i really think that from your earliest meetings, you've shown this, exuberant embrace of the duties that we have as, as commissioners from your fluency with, with the record, with the materials that that are assigned to us, as is homework to prepare for these hearings, from your your willingness to, to speak up and to call out injustice and,

in items and that may be lacking, from your perspective in these hearings, i think it has been just a testament to your dedication to the degree to which you care. i think that is something that we should all strive for, and not just on this body, but throughout. other forms of, of service in the city. and i just wanted to say that, we'll miss you and very much appreciate the service that will not be soon forgotten. thank you. with that, i see i'm going to skip commissioner levy. okay. if i, if i may, and go to commissioner swig. i just wanted to add that, vice president lundberg is now officially known as, alexis levy. so that's who president lopez is referring to. in case you're wondering. so, i'd also like to thank alex, for

his service. and, you know, the key things here are, show up. he does, do your reading, and there's a lot of it, and he does. and then, use your ears. and he does. and deliver fair and just and even even tempered, opinions and he does, and so you've hit on all, all the, all the buttons, one of your predecessors called this the people's court. and it's the people's court, because we on this body do not work for the government. we work for the citizens of san francisco. and we are here to show compassion, to, their needs and understand that they are our neighbors. and we together, collaboratively, we

hopefully make for a better cit. and you certainly, fulfill that mission as well. by doing your best to collaborate with the citizenry and again, use those ears, listen and render a fair and just opinion. so i thank you for showing up and, and getting us to, to getting us to the point where we reach our goals and we will miss you. thank you. commissioner trasvina. i think my colleagues have said almost everything that i could have said, only better. and i just want to add my appreciation to you, alex, having sat next to you now for the better part of two years or so, getting to work with you and sharing, emulating your care for the people of the city and county of san francisco, getting it right, taking the time, reviewing the laborious and long, long records and that we get every week. you're a model of public

service. so, in this era when vice presidents go on to do bigger and better things and great community service, i wish you well in your endeavors, and we will miss you as vice president of the board. i certainly have to echo everything that my fellow commissioners have said, but, you know, my additional comment here is what a joy it is to have sat next to you. they do not serve, serve, you know, next to you in a metaphorical sense, but to sit here, to be able to have those, those asides and those periods between items that, you know, help move, you know, keep us sharp and move us along. and it's been been wonderful when, you know, we find ourselves agreeing an awful lot. and when we we've disagreed, it's always been in the spirit of you know, the, the pursuit of truth. and it's been a really wonderful experience serving with you. thank you. alexis thank you all. i didn't want to go last because

now i'm going to be all emotional. but, thank you everybody. thank you, i today is indeed my last meeting, and i'm sad to say it was slightly less than voluntary, but i could not be any more grateful today to have had this opportunity to serve the people of san francisco, who are my constituents on this body. as commissioner swig said, this is the people. i've viewed it as the people's court to. i think he told me that when right when i first started here two years ago, and it really stuck with me, and i've tried to keep that it in my heart at all times. side note as miss rosenberg said, i did recently legally change my name to alexis levy, which is, it's awkward timing. it's my last meeting, but, it will help you get ahold of me if you want to. in the future, i

would appreciate it if i could be referred to as vice president or commissioner levy. this tonight, my last day in this role, it's truly been an honor and a privilege to serve the public. i sincerely hope i've been an effective arbiter on this panel, i also want to thank all of my fellow commissioners for their service, which i believe to be extremely effective and genuine and for entrusting me with the vice president position of this body, even for a brief period. i also want to thank julie rosenberg, who is a truly remarkable department head, and alec long and jamal mejia, who are boa staff, as well as jen huber, our city attorney. past city attorneys brad russell and john givner, and to all of the amazing department heads who represent their many various city departments here, unlike many other people who leave city government, i encourage you all to stay in touch with me. i would love to hear from you. my email address is alexis at alexis beliefnet.com. i hope and plan to see you all again. perhaps in a different role than

commissioner. thank you and i look forward to having this this last meeting here tonight. thank you, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? anyone in the room? anybody on zoom for public comment? okay, i don't see anybody. so we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the august 14th, 2024 meeting. vice president levy i move to adopt the minutes from our july or i'm sorry, our august 14th meeting. okay is there any public comment on that motion to adopt? i don't see any in the room or on zoom. so, on that motion, president lopez, i commissioner trevino, i commissioner epler i commissioner swig i so that motion carries 5 to 0. the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number four. this is jurisdiction request number 24. dash five, subject property at 551 alvarado street. a letter from catherine woods,

the requester asking the board to take jurisdiction over street improvement permit number 23 00435, which was issued on july 17th, 2024. the appeal period ended on august first, 2024, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on august 8th, 2024. the permit holder is randall laroche. the permit description. remove and reconstruct two ten foot driveway, curb cut and sidewalk per approved plan. saw cut two feet of ac gutter and replace with two inches ac zps over eight inch concrete base. additional paving is required and directed by the bureau of street. use of mapping instructor inspector. the field inspection is mandatory prior to excavation and pouring concrete, so we'll hear from the requester first and miss woods is joining us via zoom. miss woods, welcome. are you with us? i see, i see, yes, i'm here. i'm just trying to get my camera to start up. okay. thank you. you're

welcome. you have three minutes to address the board. please, can i. i would like to share a screen. can i share my screen? please go ahead, we'll pause the time while. yeah okay. i don't know why it's not working for me to share. do you want. do you want me to share the slides for you? sure. thank you very much. and i'll just go next. next when you need to get to the next one. okay good afternoon, everybody. my name is catherine woods, and i'm filing this jurisdiction request and to grant late jurisdiction, the board must find that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal, can i go to the next screen, please? can i go to the

next screen? thank you. and so this screen is showing you the timeline of the email chain, which i submitted along with my jurisdiction request. and, if you look at this, you'll see on march the 8th, the dpw, specifically told me that i need to go on to the website to let me know when the permit is issued. and i go on to the website and i check regularly all the time. then you'll see on july the 1st, after a few other backwards and forwards with the dpw that i specifically asked dpw to let me know when the permit has been issued. and you see there on august the 7th, i'm told by dpw that the permit was issued, on the 15th of august and that, oh, sorry, the permits been issued and that i'm late, but that they did not update

their website. so dpw themselves suggests that i contact the board of appeals due to dpw oversight in updating the website. can we go to the next slide, please? so just a bit of context about what's going on here. you can see that we have a 30 foot long, 34 foot long space. and on our street the houses are 25ft wide. the curb cuts are nine feet wide, which means that 95% of the parking on our street is 16ft or less. here is the particular spot we're talking about, and you can see it's used for two cars. presently, two cars are used there are parked there all the time. so we go to the next slide please. so you can see the project sponsors are asking to put a curb cut smack bang in the middle of that, which means that there's no street parking outside that, that house. and

they want to take two parking spots away from the street and have one private parking spot inside their project. so can we go to the next slide, please? so i'm, i'm, i'm was diligent and tried to appeal. i had no way to appeal the permit before it was issued because i can't it's not allowed. and i had no means to tell when the permit was granted. and i never got a chance to file an appeal because no update meant that the dpw caused me to be late in filing an appeal. thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy lee of three s representing the permit holders, randall laroche and david loudon. under the rules of the board of appeals, the board lacks jurisdiction. accepting extraordinary cases where the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the

requester to be late in filing the appeal. in attachment five of our written submittal. i'll put it up here. attachment. sorry for overhead, please. yeah, thanks. attachment four of our written submittal. the timeline shows that miss woods had over four opportunities to file an appeal regarding the curb cut, but did not do so while dbi s website may not have updated the permit status when she viewed it at that time, she was notified on june 17th that the permit was ready to be issued shortly. despite this, she only inquired about the permit status twice on june 24th to dpw and july 1st to someone named nicholas, without following up until august 7th. over a month later, it is not until august 7th did she inquire again and dbi dpw responded that same day. miss woods could have easily emailed again, called or visited dpw from july 1st

through august 6th, and discovered that the permit was issued. the failure of dpw to update its website or notify miss woods, which it was not required to do so, does not excuse her from the responsibility to follow up in a timely manner. it took her 28 business days to inquire again after not receiving a response to her last email. requester had 22 business days between july first and august 1st to check the status of the permit and still file a timely appeal by not doing so, she missed the deadline due to her own inaction. not any extraordinary circumstances caused by the city. the lengthy period of time in which requester had available to her to determine the permit status, and still file a timely appeal, negates any extraordinary circumstances that the city's website may have inadvertently caused at a point in time, the website or dpw lack of communication to her did not cause her to miss the deadline requests, or simply did not follow up on her own desire to appeal. during the entire month of july. given miss woods past

experience with appealing development projects, she's very familiar with the appeal process and timelines, allowing her to take over one month to check the permit status would not only be unfair to permit holders, but would set a dangerous precedent, allowing anyone to delay inquiries and then claim extraordinary circumstances to justify missing deadlines. this directly contradicts recent efforts by the federal, state and local governments to reduce discretionary appeals for housing projects. it would also send a message to ignore existing deadlines. permit holders purchase an uninhabitable historic home designed to code compliant projects that incorporated design changes from the requester, followed all the rules set forth by the city, along with its many opportunities for discretionary review and appeals, and is now trying to create two family friendly housing units in san francisco. we respectfully urge this board to deny the request by jurisdiction and do not add any more delays or costs to this project. thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from public works. welcome. three minutes. yeah my name is brianna

and i am the plant checker of the project. actually, i was out of the country during the permit approval process, but my colleagues did what they need to do. they processed it and then previously, when i review it, we had some inquiries about the project, and i did talk to other people. miss woods, that she can definitely review the project approval date, because typically we don't we don't notify anyone when the project is approved. we have so many projects, but we notified them that they need to review our system on a regular basis to make sure that the permit is approved. and as far as the design is concerned, or public works is concerned, this was reviewed based on our code and issued on july 17th, 2024. and but, i guess if anybody has

a question i can ask. okay. thank you. yes. we have a question from commissioner swig. thank you very much for your testimony. when you you just said we regularly update our system, which should inform the public. it does get regularly updated. i don't know what happened and i'm not an expert in in the system itself, but every time we issue a permit and there should be there the next day. and is that the word is the system that you refer to the, the, the database that we approve. so and that holds all our permit systems. so the means of somebody who is interested, whether they are a, an applicant or they are somebody who is just interested in this case, that would be the appellant, is the most convenient means of accessing information is the website. yes. we refer them to because there's a search engine

based on that address. and then it would tell them what the status of the project is. so even in this case, you said i don't know what happened, but it the system didn't get updated. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i just need you to confirm that. and i don't know what happened. the system didn't get updated. so in that case, when a system doesn't get updated, what happens to an interested party? be it the permit holder or the appellant? people can say, sorry, people can reach us if there is an error in the system, people would call us, hey, i can't find any information and someone would respond on, on, on an email base. okay. thanks a lot. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. you can be seated. we will now take public comment. is there anyone here for public comment in the room? anybody on zoom? if you're here

for public comment on this item, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any. so commissioners matter. submitted commissioners, let's start with commissioner swig. for any comments on this matter, so my concern on this one and i'm sympathetic to dpw and they have permit upon permit upon permit upon permit to deal with in our in our city, i'm sympathetic to their challenges. at the same time, we heard that this is a the website is a primary communications tool, which which the public relies on to get their information. and i'm sympathetic to the fact that people make mistakes. but if this is a primary communication tool for the public to rely upon for good and current information, then i don't know whether the city, even though it was a mistake, it fulfilled their their responsibility of providing those tools to enable

a concerned citizen to get that information. that's where the root of my concern lies at this point. and i look forward to, my fellow commissioners to comment further, i share, commissioner swig's concern. i do point out that in terms of communication, that was had with the dpw, it was in june when the appellant found out that the permit was ready to be issued pending certain information. you know, certain information being added to it. she did follow up at a point after that, and she did follow up a second time. and then, yes, there was this this break throughout the month of july in which there was no communication back and forth. but, you know, there's a lot, a lot of noticing that happens online, in a lot of publishing of notices that happen online and usually it's the publishing of the notice in some sort of form that's supposed to notify a person, you know, the, the public at large that, that a permit has been issued. and so

i'm, i'm curious, you know what what what is supposed to be the mechanism whereby the public learns that, that an appealable permit has been issued in this case, to me, this is a very clear cut case of where we should grant jurisdiction. this one is it's where the city intentionally. i don't think there's an intentional anything here, but i think inadvertently, you know, i'm not even saying anybody from dpw or the city did anything wrong, necessarily. but the fact that the fact was both, as presented by the requester and in an email dated august 7th from dpw staff that the publicly accessible website did not update to reflect the approval. and that to me is the city inadvertently causing the request. miss woods to, to not file this appeal. but it's very clear to me that if she had known that the that the permit

had been appealed, she would have promptly, filed that said appeal, which she clearly was more engaged with this than, i would say, any normal person involved in our cases are, i certainly would not set a standard that says that people have to call every day if the website isn't isn't updating. as somebody who's had to come to city hall three times in the last two weeks to get my business name updated, i don't think that's a reasonable standard, i think i whenever i check permits, i check the website. i think that's what most people, including plan checkers and architects and everybody else in the city, does as well, so to me, and we don't it's not appropriate for us to consider the, the merits of the case at this stage. this is just whether the city inadvertently caused miss woods to miss the deadline. and based on the record that's been presented here, the city did inadvertently cause miss woods to miss this filing deadline. and that's the end of my inquiry here. it

doesn't have anything to do with the with the underlying case or the property or the work being done or anything like that. i think it's just that. and i think to me, the answer is clea. i don't like to add to commissioner that it is crystal clear that we should take jurisdiction in this matter. and i find it almost appalling. the suggestion that from not from a neighbor or not from the permanent, but from from a hired advocate that people have to call every day or that it's the fault of the neighbor for not being diligent. this is not the way we should be running the process. the city government. we've lost enough over the last few months as people have heard a loss. the people of san francisco have lost their rights to have a voice in what goes on in their neighborhood. our our, our our rights under the charter. this bodies, the people have been restricted, have been

limited, maybe for good reason. i'm not here to argue about that, but to suggest that when it is clear where the city acknowledged quite clearly to the member of the public, made a mistake, didn't update it to suggest that now it is the responsibility of individuals neighbors to call every day. did you check it? did you check it? did you approve it? they would make them pretty quickly into vexatious members of the public and when they have so much at stake by the actions of us, by the department, they're not about to do that. so i think it is crystal clear that the neighbors should have that we should take jurisdiction. and the notion that the members of the public have to clean up after excusable error is not something that that i can abide by. and i do want to point it out that this is not the way that we should proceed in the future of putting so much burden

on individual members of the public, neighbors who they're not doing the they're not doing the construction, they're they're being affected by it. so i do want to reiterate that this is an appropriate time, and i'm glad this is in our provisions, to allow us to take jurisdictio. i can't disagree with anything that's been said and agree. that would echo that the, you know, daily phone call, standard would just be impracticable for the city at large. and, my, my sympathies go to the permit holder because in some ways they are the, the victim in, in this instance. and what i would say for, for the department, is it just underscores the importance of getting this blocking and tackling that that involves so much of processing the volume of permits that we do, you know,

getting it correct, getting it right, so that projects can move forward if, if they're up to code and worthy of moving forward. and also so that, interested residents can, can appeal things in a timely manner if, if, if there is issue to be taken with, with the merits of a project. with that, i will actually, vice president lamber. thank you. i wanted to add one more thing. that was information that we've received as a board previously, which is the existence of block book notifications. and that is the formal, method by which members of the public can sign up to get alerts of any permits being filed on a specific property. i just wanted to throw that out there. we've received that information from, from planning before, and i wanted to throw that out there. it it would have helped in this particular case, but it's obviously too late. vice president levy, i just want to clarify that the block book notification is only for those permits that require planning

department review. oh, you're right. well, you're right. thank you, mr. rosenberg. that's also good information. so thank you. all right. so it wouldn't have helped in this case. either way i would like to move that we take jurisdiction on, on this request on the basis that the city inadvertently caused the requester to miss the filing deadline because the website was not updated, so. yes. okay, so we have a motion from vice president levy to grant the request on the basis that the city inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal because public works is website was not updated to show that the permit was issued on that motion. president lopez, commissioner vega i commissioner epler i commissioner swig i so that motion carries 5 to 0. so miss woods, you have monday's a holiday, so you have until tuesday to file an appeal of this permit by 4:30 p.m. please reach out to us before that time. thank you. so we're going to move on to item number five.

this is appeal number 24 042 3310 mission street owners versus department of building inspection. planning department approval. subject property 3300 mission street. appealing the issuance on july 5th, 2024 to 3300 mission partners lp of a site permit priority processing new six story type three a over type one, a mixed use building with 35 studio units, 100% affordable housing, mayor's executive directive 13 zero one residential community space and commercial retail space on first floor. preserve existing three story facade along mission street and 29th street. this is permit number 2023, ten, 25, 95, 16. and as a preliminary matter, i understand that the appellants would like to request a continuance of this case. is that still the case? okay welcome. please approach. so the parties will have three minutes each to address the board and, i presume you are mr. i can't

pronounce your last name. oh, my. i'm russell wald. i'm one of the. oh representing. okay, oka, our my neighbors. okay. wonderful. we'll welcome you have three minutes to address the board on your request. thank you. so we are requesting an extension or rehearing for this particular, appeal. and one of the primary reasons is, is that we made clear that, we would, the person who put this through would be needed to copy me into any documents. so that we would receive them. they were sent on thursday. this, less than a week ago, and it was over 224 pages. and in that that i was not copied onto that. and it was not until my neighbor returned from vacation that we were able to access the documents because they were initially inaccessibl. because of the large size, we were not able to access them until monday evening. so that has given us, about 48 hours to try to review 224 documents, not

having counsel, whereas the other side of this has an extraordinarily significant well resourced counsel. and so we need time to be able to review 224 pages. okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. good evening, president lopez. and commissioners, my name is lauren chang. i'm the land use counsel for the permit holder on behalf of the permit holder, we respectfully request that the board deny the request for the continuance for three reasons. the first, and by far the most important, is that if the board grants this continuance, it puts this project on a dangerous course to lose the funding award it has received from the state. the project is financed using 9% low income tax housing credits, which require the permit holder to close on financing, start construction and submit a readiness package to the california tax credit allocation

committee no later than november 12th, 2024, which is pretty soon from now. missing that deadline could lead to forfeiture of the award, plus negative consequences impacting the sponsors from soliciting future tax credits. the permit holder needs for construction permits, including this one, to close, and the timing is already put into jeopardy with the delay caused by this appeal delaying until october, which is my understanding, the next available board of appeal hearing date could seriously jeopardize the project. second, this is an already approved ab 2011 project. the city approved the ab 2011 entitlements on february 12th, 2024. these entitlements are final. they don't expire and cannot be subject to an appeal process under state law. the timeline for the city to determine whether the project is in

conflict with objective standards or meets the eligibility criteria under ab 2011, has long elapsed. an appeal of the site permit, demolition permit, or any future permit covered under the project's ab 2011 application is incompatible with the streamlined ministerial approval and is not permitted under ab 2011. and third, the appellant has not shown good cause. i understand that, their representative is here, but i wasn't told that we needed to copy him on any correspondence, and i before i submitted the materials, i reached out to the board of appeals to confirm who i should send the materials to. i sent them on thursday before our four 4:30 p.m. deadline. they are voluminous. they're 200 plus pages, but they include two of the permit sets, 30s. so the link worked. i gave the

appellants an opportunity to confirm that the link worked, and they didn't until monday night. thank you. thank you, we do have a question from commissioner trasvina. i did, if you could, i have two questions. sure. you mentioned the, harm or on, if we granted a continuance, what would your client or what would the project be kept from doing between now and the time of a continuance? we need the permits approved for us to go forward and make our funding deadline, which is february, which is november 12th. so does our decision affect other things that you're doing? venmo do they affect the other permits? yeah. the. i didn't hear him. okay. i

can i can relay the message. the building department dbi will not put a plan checker on our case until this has gone forward. okay. and the second question i had is you stated that it's your view that we don't have jurisdiction, whether there's a continuance or not. is that my understanding? no, i meant the appeal in general. there is no i thought i understood that you were saying under ab 2011 that the that after february the 11th, the approval was on february the 11th. the 12th, yes. 12th. okay. and then did we do we have jurisdiction. do we have jurisdiction now? my opinion is no, because ab 2011 does not provide an appeal opportunity. the 60 days have

the timeline, the 60 days that the city had to determine whether a project was consistent with objective design standards and met the eligibility criteria under the state law has elapsed. that that ended in december, prior to february, prior to february. yeah. so whether we grant a continuance or not is kind of academic because in your view, we this matter shouldn't be before us anyway. is that. yes. okay thank you. we do have a question from commissioner swig. i'm going to direct this to miss rosenberg, just to give us some context here, the complaint that i heard from the appellant is that i received 214 pages of material, too late, and i. it wasn't sent to me, and i didn't get it till monday. and it's been less than 48 hours. and i hear that what i'd like to know from you is when this

hearing was scheduled for this date, when was this hearing scheduled for this date? for when did we schedule it, let me see when the appeal was filed, i just need to pull that information up. but when it was filed, the person who filed it was alex polychronidis, and i spoke with him at length about the whole process, and he said he was co appellants with eight other people in the building. and he never identified russell wald as the person to receive notice. so we did send the brief to alex. and we learned tonight that apparently he was on vacation when the brief was received. and the permit holder did ask if they needed help opening it. and she also asked who should receive the brief and as indicated on the appeal documents that were sent out, we listed alex polychronidis as the representative because he was our point person. okay, second

question. so when was a date assigned to and the july 22nd, that was filed. yeah. thank you. alex. so july 22nd, today is august 28th. second, second question. regardless of when briefs are filed or not, when did the public have access to any this brief or any other brief? when we posted the friday before the hearing. yes. and we advise. we told all of the people listed basically that the about the briefing deadline. so they were aware that the brief should be submitted by thursday. so if they didn't get it, we usually tell them contact us if you don't receive it and then we'll get it to you. so there is public is there public explanation? i got to stay with questions. is there public explanation that is available to

everybody in this room, not just the appellants that, that if you are interested in a case that the cases which are scheduled for the for any wednesday are fully available briefs posted et cetera. et cetera. on our website on the friday before we let people know that we will be posting at the friday before, right. none of the nine people listed on this appeal reached out to our office asking for the brief. but it is. is it public information that to anybody who's interested in any case, at any time for a board of appeals meeting that they can read in our on our site, contact the office and find that information on any upcoming cases available. the friday before in full. yes. we also send out postcards to the neighbors to identify the actual appeal and that they can call the office for any

additional information. okay. so therefore even though this situation occurred and the claim by the appellant is i didn't get the brief or the brief wasn't openable or whatever in in fact, the brief was was delivered to the public, made accessible without a password, without any conditions made available to anybody in the world last friday in full. is that correct? correct. okay. thank you. okay. thank you. so we thank you. can be seated. we'll now hear from the planning department. good evening, president lopez. vice president levy, members of the board. i'm tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. as you heard, the appellants are asking for a continuance. the reason is that the permit holders response

brief is complex, and their use of the outside counsel puts them in a disadvantage. additionally, the permit holder had more time to review the appeal appellant's brief than they did for the response brief. the department disagrees with the continuance request. we do not believe the appeal issues and the response are complex and warrants additional time. the appeal brief was three pages, not including exhibits, and the response brief was 11 pages, not including exhibits. both were within the maximum 12 page limit. both were submitted on time and circulated to the representative or agent of both parties. is prescribed by the briefing schedule. lastly, as you all know, there is no stipulation that any or both parties need representation by outside counsel. as such, the department does not support a continuance and is prepared to represent the department on this appeal tonight. thank you. okay.

thank you. i don't see any questions. so is dbi. kevin birmingham, are you available? yes i am. can you hear me? yes we can. you have three minutes. okay. dbi does not support, the delaying of this hearing. we're prepared to go forward at this time, it's mostly a planning issue, but we're here to support in any way we can. okay. thank you. so we will have public comment on this request. only the request for a continuance. is there anyone in the room who wants to address the request for a continuance? is there anyone on zoom who wants to address a request for a continuance? i see four hands raised. so this is on the continuance. please go ahead. the person who is connected via an ipad, it says you need to unmute yourself.

this is only on the continuance, only on the continuance. say yes. yes, i approve of the continuance. i would like a continuance. this is an important matter to people of san francisco. okay. thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from joe di sales. please go ahead. hi. can you hear me? yes hi. yeah, i actually live within 150ft of this development. i have tried reaching out to the developers for over a year, connie. specifically, we've never been able to get in touch. i had no idea there was any public information out there. the only thing i received was that, small postcard that said that the permit was issued july fifth, although our building did not receive that until august 13th, our, our entire association and a lot of our neighbors that reside around the immediate area

have multiple concerns. we've we've never seen any environmental studies. we want to know if there's going to be any emergency services. and resources, as they're already super stretched thin here, the wind issues that the extra three stories will cause on top of the already existing three stories, the lack of light, will there be more public transportation? and also this area is so highly congested, especially along 29th street, and we feel it's going to become even more dangerous and even more double parking with this many units on a corner with no parking. the main thing is the fact that i, as a public person, have never seen any public information, even though i've reached out directly numerous times to find such information. this is the first time i've ever attended a hearing of this type, so perhaps i didn't know where to look, but i would think that reaching out

personally to the people listed on the building should have helped. and all of my requests were denied. thank you, thank you, thank you. so right now we are only taking public comment on the request for a continuance. so marcia farzad, are you do you want to weigh in on the request for a continuance? that's what we're taking public comment on right now. or do you want to wait to see if the case is heard to provide public comment? mr. ghafar zadeh. hi there, i like to so we're just taking public comment on the request for a continuance in your position on it. okay. so i'll just wait for okay. public comment. thank you. robert fruchtman, do you have public comment on the request for a continuance? mr. fruchtman, you need to unmute yourself. we can't hear you. we

can't hear you. sorry. can you hear me? yes right now we're taking public comment on the request for continuance. do you have a position? i oppose the request for continuance. i'm sorry. say that again. please say that again. please. robert fruchtman can you please repeat your comment? sorry about that. hi, yeah, i, i oppose the request for continuance. i don't think the city should be putting affordable housing tax credits at risk. okay. thank you. so i don't see any further public comment on the request for continuance. continuance. so commissioners, did you want to take a vote? you can choose to take a vote on this to continue or not, or you can choose not to

entertain it. and we can move forward with the hearing. i'd be supportive of a of a vote, i think, given that we've we've heard, extensive comment on this. let's start with, commissioner trasvina, for any comments before we vote. and just for clarity, i did advise the parties that the only available date we have at this point is october 9th, in terms of the volume of our calendar. so that's when the continuance would be to. thank you, president lopez, i don't support a continuance. i i think the miss miss chang's comments about the impact of what a continuance would, would involve. i take very seriously on the other and on the other side, it's kind of a balancing issue. the, the residents, neighbors, the people who have filed the appeal have while they didn't get the chance

to review the, submission, this is their case. this is their burden to make the appeal. so i don't think they are burdened by whatever lack of communication there was, by the by the absence of the of one of the individuals. so i don't support the continuance. i agree with commissioner. i don't i'm i'm a litigator. i've asked for many continuance requests in the past. this one just doesn't quite reach the level for me as far as what constitutes good cause for a continuance, it's, you know, all of this information is publicly posted. the parties get it basically at the same time we do, which is friday afternoon, and miss rosenberg testified as to the fact that this, representative was not included on the notification list. so all of those things put together, means to me that we should hear this,

this evening. i have nothing to add to those arguments. unlike the last case where there was a mistake and there was a mistake, there was no mistake here. so that takes that out of the, the process, the board of appeals has a very structured process. the protocols are the same for everybody week in, week out, meeting in, meeting out. those processes are fully disclosed in a number of places. and there was advisory, as we've heard from miss rosenberg and probably alex as well, the information went out on time as it does for everybody else, the appellant, the permit holder, they all had access to all the information, whether it be from the appellant

or from the permit holder, as well as ourselves on the appellant at the appointed time, as promised. and so there there was full opportunity, full fairness, no, no injustice, so there's really no excuse here but to move forward and have a hearing tonight. i am inclined to agree. i also want to thank miss tam for her her summary of the issue. i feel like it was a very helpful summary. and with that i will i will move to, deny the request for a continuance on the basis that there's not good cause shown. okay, on that motion, commissioner trasvina, i vice president levi i commissioner epler i commissioner swig i so that motion carries 5 to 0 and the

continuance request is denied. so we are moving on to the appeal. so, each party will have seven minutes to address the board and three minutes for rebuttal. so, mr. wald, please approach. thank you. and thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns and community concerns. i want to start by saying that we are very much in favor of 100%, low income, low income housing and we would like we absolutely welcome this building to be built. the issue is, is about under its current or exceeding the height restrictions on top of the crowding that's within this particular building. so for example, they're developing 300 square foot units is what we were initially told. as we learned a little bit deeper, the

initial review from these documents show that the projects are as small as 267 to 283ft!s, and this contract contradicts the permit holders claim that their unit sizes range from 290 to 407ft!s. such discrepancies alone appear as a significant oversight or deliberate misrepresentation of, of the units in this particular case. furthermore it was noted that the environmental studies and the issues that we see related to this, there have been no environmental studies conducted. and yet it is at a tight corner in this neighborhood, and it is now exceeding from what was previously there. you are talking about significantly increasing the size and scope of what was previously there, and creates deep concern for the neighborhood as a whole to remind if this board, if they're not aware that this particular building burned down from

potential overcrowding and burn down the subsequent buildings nearby. so we see deep concern about the fact that these units are small. there has a incredibly small and does not at the same time have an environmental review and concerns about the light and ventilation, the egress from the building and a violation of the neighborhood character and zoning laws. the proposed additions exceed current height limits, obstructing our views and the neighborhood's overall character. disregarding zoning laws to maintain the architectural harmony. one of the greatest concerns, i think we do see is the traffic concerns. there is issues, and i will give an example of where we have been locked into our own garages under current situation, to be able to get out, and we i come on behalf and represent one of my neighbors who was trapped from a chemotherapy appointment

to be able to go to a chemotherapy appointment because of being trapped within this. this is a constant problem and situation at 29th and mission of these traffic areas. and now we're talking about exceeding not what was there before, but going well beyond that particular scope. so we have deep environmental concerns and traffic concerns about this. and furthermore, we have an issue about the historical and cultural integrity, the purpose, development, design and scale does not harmonize with the architectural character of this area. with all of these things combined, we simply ask that it's the scope that is our concern and that we stay within the scope of what is currently there as a means to minimize and mitigate a lot of these traffic concerns. or at a minimum, we at least do an environmental impact study and traffic study to understand the effect on the neighborhood of exceeding what was previously there. never mind the fact that we are already

dealing with incredibly tight conditions in this particular space. i thank the board for this opportunity to address them. thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasvina for you, mr. wald. hi. thank you for your presentation, somewhere within the 220 pages that the permit holder submitted, they described the lack of, response or the lack of communication by, i guess, you or your neighbors to their efforts to reach out. we and i wanted you to help want to give you the opportunity to state what the level or examples of interaction you've had on this project and whether you saw that gigantic sign that we had pictures of in the materials. yes, that's how we became

informed about this overall, about the permit being issued. so we, bear in mind that i moved in in february, and another set of neighbors moved in shortly after february. and for those who were there previously, there was not communication to us specifically about this. so i have received no communication from the permit holder about this. the earliest communication we received is the notice notification of the permit holder and that in july. and that's why we're here is based on that particular posting that made it afforded us the opportunity to see this. so no, we have not received a communication. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. good evening. my name is laurel muniz. i have lived in bernal heights for 49 years and have served and currently serve on

the bernal heights neighborhood center board since 2019. i'm here this evening to tell you about the bernal heights neighborhood center and our plans for creating a 100% affordable housing development at 3300 mission street, bernal heights neighborhood center has served the community for the close to 46 years, bringing employment opportunities, support services and housing to those in need. our mission has always been to preserve and enhance the ethnic, cultural and economic diversity of bernal heights and the surrounding neighborhoods. building an equitable community for all the bernal heights housing corporation is the neighborhood center's affiliate organization that develops, preserves and rehabilitates affordable homes throughout san francisco. to date, we have completed 18 developments with 586 units as san francisco faces a significant housing crisis and a daunting state mandated housing element goal to build 82,000

homes by 2031, we have prioritized bringing more affordable housing to bernal heights. the proposed 3300 mission street project will mark the first affordable housing development in bernal heights in nearly two decades. during this time, many residents have been forced to leave the neighborhood. they've long called home due to rising costs. in 2016, a five alarm fire destroyed the gray wood hotel on 29th and mission street. a single room occupancy hotel that displaced 58 tenants, many of them from underserved populations. we are proposing to use ab 2011 to transform the property into a beacon of hope. a modern six story building with up to 35 studio units of affordable housing, a residential community space, and a neighborhood serving ground floor commercial. we must allow ab 2011 and other such bills to do as intended. create more

housing in an efficient timeline. i respectfully encourage your support of affordable housing and to reject this appeal. next, you'll hear from our land use attorney lauren chang with shepard mullins. hello again, commissioners. i respectfully request that the board deny this appeal as you've heard, i'm going to say it a few more times. this project involves an already approved, already funded, 100% affordable ab 2011 project. i want to start by acknowledging that the permit holders, while not required by state law, completed extensive community outreach efforts, including to the appellant, so thank you for acknowledging that the permit holder has a deep desire to work with the community and the city to bring this project into a reality, and they've worked incredibly hard to do so up to this point. we also request that the board assess only the validity of the

site permit, and whether the site permit is consistent with the underlying approvals. given that this is a streamlined and ministerial project approved under state law, as i mentioned earlier, the 60 day timeline for the city to determine whether the project is in conflict with objective standards or meets the eligibility criteria under ab 2011, has long elapsed, expiring in december. in addition, the planning department issued their final approval on the state density bonus and ab 2011 requests on february 12th, 2020. for more than six months ago. as such, the city has already determined that the project is eligible for ab 2011 and in that complies with the objective standards in the planning code. the entitlements for the project are final and cannot be subject to an appeal process. process. under state law. furthermore, the project and the approved site permit remains substantially similar to the project contemplated in the ab 2011 approval. from february, i

included both sets of plans in the exhibits. the project continues to meet the eligibility criteria in the statute. it is also important for the board to know that if our permit or site permit had been filed two months later, after january 1st, 2024, then this appeal could not go forward at all. under ab 1114, which prohibits a city from considering appeals for site permits such as the one before you today, while the city has taken the position that ab 1114 does not apply to the project because the site permit was filed prior to the effective date of the statute, we want to reiterate the clear desire of the state to make housing easier to build. this project is exactly the type of project we need to see more of in the state. it is 100% affordable. it used a streamlining tool created by our lawmakers that exempts it from sequa. it requires

shortened review and approval time periods, and allows for the density and height incentives to increase the number of affordable units. it's proposed in a currently vacant and burnt out building that previously had low income tenants, and the development team is made up of the city's first and only black lead development group and it includes members of the community who deeply care about the neighborhood. lastly, as i've mentioned, this project already has its funding lined up. it received a low income tax credit from tcac and as stated in my initial remarks, further delay will jeopardize that funding and the viability of the entire project. so i implore the board to uphold state law and deny this appeal. and i yield the remainder of my time. thank you, thank you. we have a question from commissioner swig. yes who on your team has icu various members of your team here? who on your team has

specific information with regard to the construction and the module sizes and all that? i can answer that. so there's i understand i didn't ask the question yet. okay. so sorry. with all due respect. sorry, i looked at the plans and i saw a varying sizes of units. what is. according to your plans? what is for the test? for the record, what is the smallest unit in the anticipated project? so the smallest unit is 250ft!s. but that's gross square feet. so what's shown in the plan is the living space size gross gross square feet includes the module itself, which includes the bathroom and the living space. is that the definition that we need to have the definitions to make sure that everybody understands that we have our architect here who can answer better than me. that's why i wanted the guy. sorry i didn't mean to trip you up, but if you could identify yourself for the

record, please, if you could identify yourself, your name for the record, i'm the project manager. project architect from beyer architects, working the development team for the last two years on this project. so to address your question, so what is the smallest, module living living space in the, the, the proposed project. and i ask this because this seems to be the premium concern of the appellant. so there are three ways to calculate the areas. one is the gross square feet, which includes the outside walls, exterior wall. the corridor walls and the and half of the partition walls on both sides. so usually the, the city will ask us for that area. that's gsf, that's 290ft!s. it's the smallest one, and 407ft!s is the biggest one. okay, 290 290ft!s. okay. and the actual living space that would be inside thos,

those walls, which is what. so the living space, the smallest one is 150ft!s. but that does nt include the toilets, the closets, the kitchen counter. so including the toilet, including the sorry, including the toilets. i was in the hotel business, so this is what i so including the toilets within within the walls which surround the space, which would include the toilets, the closets and anything that could be built in its interior. what is the square footage of the smallest? the smallest one is 243ft!s. okay, great, do you have anybody have information on this? was a sro, does anybody have information on what this shows? product was like that is does anybody have information with regard to what was the smallest unit in the sr, or what was the average unit size in the sro? and did that include a bathroom, the sro, i can't remember, but they were much smaller. there were 120ft!s

of gsf, so they were really, really tiny, right? they were unsafe. there were no sprinklers. that's one of the reasons they were built in a way. they were built in 1904. right. so they were built so, i just want to get to the root of the question for the purpose of answering the appellant's concerns. so the appellant's concern, two concerns is the smallest the smallest module is very small. you've qualified that as 240ft!s. yeah, and theni wanted to compare that to what was the size of the same smallest module in what was there in the first place, which was somewhere in the one hundreds of square feet, which is smaller than 240ft!s. so, in fact, is it would it be your testimony that the smallest unit in this building is going to be much larger than the average or the smallest units that they are

replacing? yes, yes, yeah. okay that's existing building had 13 units per floor. we have seven units per floor. thanks i appreciate that. thank you. can you fill out a speaker card so we get the spelling of your name correctly. and also the woman who represented the bernal heights group. can you also fill out a speaker card because we didn't. thank you okay. so we will now hear from the planning department. welcome. you have seven minutes. thank you. good evening once again, tina tam for the planning department, 3300 mission street is an existing three story mixed use building in the mission bernal neighborhood. commercial zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district constructed before 1900. the building is a 28 room sro hotel over ground floor commercial retail. in 2016, the building was raised by a five alarm fire and has been vacant

ever since. as proposed, the project is seeking approval through assembly bill ab 2011, a program which allows for ministerial review of eligible projects. the project is also seeking approval through the state density bonus law, a program which allows for more density and more height. the scope of the permit is to construct three new stories on top of the existing three story building. the building will contain 35 studio units on the upper stories and commercial retail, with support services on the ground floor. this is a 100% affordable housing project in terms of transportation. the project site is within a quarter mile of 15 muni stops, 35 bike parking spaces will be provided on the site. bikeways are along 29th street as well as nearby tiffany street. the design includes the retention and preservation of the existing building facade, and includes

three story vertical addition at the top, resulting in the building height of 73ft. unit sizes ranged between 200 and 90 to about 400ft!s, each dwelling unit will have its own private bathroom and a limited kitchen area. the project team includes a number of nonprofit and city agencies, including the bernal heights housing corporation, the tabernacle community development corporation, and the mayor's office of housing and community development. the appellants are the condo owners at the nearby adjacent building at 3310 mission street. their concerns are the project will obstruct views from the rooftop, will increase parking issues in the neighborhood, is incompatible with the historic character of the area. is within 500ft of an existing freeway and is too dense and the units are too small. ab 2011, also known as the affordable housing and hyde

road jobs act of 2022, was signed by the governor, governor gavin newsom, and became effective on july 1st, 2023. ab 2011 allows for ministerial review and approval, so long as the project meets the criteria for eligibility. once the project is deemed eligible. ab 2011 stipulates a 90 day review period for the project. no neighborhood notification is required, although i believe outreach was conducted, no public hearing is required before the planning commission and no sql review is required. the building permit was filed on october 25th, 2023. the notice of project eligibility was issued on december 20th, 2023. the planning department determined that the project as proposed qualifies and is eligible for approval under ab 2011. on february the 12th, 2023, the project is located on a commercial corridor. it is not on an industrial site. it is not

on farmland and wetland. it meets the affordability criteria listed under the government cod. it contains at least five dwelling units. it has completed the phase one environmental assessment and no hazardous materials were found on site, and it's not located within 500ft of a freeway, and it meets all the objective standards of the planning code. this project is also a state density bonus project pursuant to state density bonus law, 100% affordable projects when located within a half mile of a major transit stop, are entitled to unlimited residential density. three additional stories in height, or 33ft up to five incentives and concessions and unlimited waivers from development standards. the project is proposed is seeking waivers pertaining to rear yard, usable open space dwelling, unit mix and building height. these

waivers are very typical of state density bonus projects and were approved by the planning department. as these waivers, one will not have a specific adverse impacts upon public health or safety. two would not have any impacts on any properties that's listed on the california register, and three would not be contrary to state or federal law. any waivers conferred through the state density bonus law or consider code complying. therefore, 3300 mission street is determined to be consistent with the objective standards of the planning code. the project is proposed has been thoroughly reviewed by the planning department. it is eligible and consistent with ab 2011 and state density bonus la. while the department understands the concerns raised by the appellants regarding the proposed density and height, this project follows the criteria outlined in ab 2011 and state law. there are 35 studio

units for low and very low income households. the unit size exceeds the minimum unit size requirement of the sf building code of a of 220ft!s. san jose avenue is a principal arterial road and not a freeway. and lastly, the project preserves and rehabilitates the exterior of the existing victorian building, which contains a number of decorative features and elements. as such, the department respectfully asks that this board denied the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit on the basis that the permit is eligible and consistent with ab 2011 and the state density bonus law, and was properly issued. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. we have questions from commissioner swig and commissioner trasvina. thank you for your thorough presentation. as always, our our limitations

here is, as i understand, the law and, ab 2011 is as long as the project meets the objective standards that that kind of closes the door on anything broader. is that true? that is true. thank you for that question, this is a valid appeal, but the, i guess the issue raised for this appeal was somewhat limited to how the city applied and reviewed per ab 2011, and state law did we follow the criteria, outline? did we miss something? is there going to be an impact to public safety? will there be an impact to our building that's on the california register? is this project in conflict with state and federal law? we don't think so. perfect thank you for that. because we're we're in somewhat new. the reason i'm asking this

question is, is that we're in new territory here. ab ab 211 is a is new new territory for us. it's tightened for us, meaning the board of appeals. it's also new territory for citizens making appeals and having concerns and all in the interests of speeding, speeding the plow and solving a housing crisis. so that's why i'm asking these these questions, and now down to the standard questions. per your testimony that this under any circumstances, this building is compliant in how it was presented in the plans were presented. yes. we believe so. okay, when you when you're, discussing with your peers in any building this building or anything else, i'm sure that sometimes there, you have maybe

some controversy, maybe some, conflict. i'm not saying anybody punches anybody out, but, you know, are you sure that's right. type of conflict in your discussions, and, and quite often you scratch your head saying, what have we got to do to make this make sure that we're getting this right in this project? was there was there anything that kept you up at night in your, in your discussions or gave, gave the planning department any, any cause for, deep concern and or was it a pretty straightforward project in that, if in that it was it's compliance, was there and you just ran down the checklist of what it takes to, comply to, ab 2011 and everything else. was there anything that you found, that simulated conflict within the

department on this project? thank you for that question. i don't believe so. while ab 2011 is a relatively, relatively newer bill, adopted in in 2023, state density bonus law has been around for quite some time since 2017. we have over, i think, 65 state density bonus projects approved by the department. that's close to 3000 units, these are standard waivers. all those other 65 density bonus projects also received waivers. we don't think this is an atypical state density housing project whatsoever. okay. and thank you for that perfect segue into my final question with which is regarding waivers, as you know, we have conversations about open space. we have have

conversations about things that have come into play in many typical projects that if you don't have a open space for a backyard, if you don't have this, you don't have that, you don't you don't get your project approved. or let's put it this way, the appellant has a good case. and sometimes, has their their appeal upheld in this case, you very clear on you you address these waivers. these waivers were available and they were justified in making, was there were there any other, things like these waivers that, again, caused you to have any concerns? again thank you for the question. no, i don't believe these waivers are atypical. they're generally pretty standard, for many of our state density projects, this is a corner site. it is triangular in shape. it's a bit atypical in

that sense. it is very small, so corner buildings oftentimes can support taller buildings. there is open space, usable open space on the rooftop. it's not like they don't have any, and there are other sort of large size projects, four stories or so in the neighborhood, and so we, we feel that this is an appropriate project from a design standpoint. they are retaining the existing building, if you see the proposed elevation, all of the exterior features of the current building that's built before 1900 will be preserved and rehabilitated. that adds to the historic sort of feel of the neighborhood. and we support the project. thank you very much. i'll pass it along to the next interested party. thank you. i just have a couple of questions and maybe fewer, depending on your the first answer, which is were you personally involved in

this or was this are you representing the department and people who did all these reviews? i represent the planning department. i'm the deputy zoning administrator. right. but were you what commissioner selig said, did anything keep you up at night? well, if you were, i wouldn't expect to be kept. if you were kept up at night, if you were not actually on this permit, which is probably, i'm assuming you're above that rather than doing everyone that comes acros, in preparing for this hearing, i did work with the assigned planner and the housing specialist for the department in understanding the case, but i'm not personally involved in this project. that's the question. well, what i wanted to ask you may have no knowledge of so i, which is, when you talk about, the public safety aspect, was

there a specific was there, an examination of pedestrian safety and the impact of having six floors of people on a busy corner, as opposed to the number that were previously there before the building was burned down, no, we didn't do an environmental review because environmental review was not required, we're not aware that having five stories of residential poses an impact to pedestrian safety, there is no evidence or information presented for us to respond to about that. well, there's the difference between saying there is not a pedestrian safety problem or a traffic safety safety problem and saying, well, we don't have any evidence of it. so i'm just i'm curious as to what the review was. it's the

finding. it's the finding that we make that the project. doesn't pose to be i mean, it's on mission street. there, there is, lots of both pedestrian, public transportation and vehicular sort of traffic, including bikes. it is a very centralized, corridor. we're not aware that this, this project proposing 35 units will propose, will will pose as a safety pedestrian safety hazard in this neighborhood. okay. so just so we're clear, there's a difference between saying it won't have an impact and you have no information that it will have an impact. i'm just curious as to which one the department is saying. it sounds like you're

saying you don't have any information and not affirmatively saying it won't have an impact. i believe i'm saying i don't have any information. it's never been presented in that way where we need to go ahead and check in and talk about that. this this project has been vetted by our streetscape design review team that includes, staff members from not just the planning department, but from mta and public works. they are our engineering expert. i'm not i wouldn't know whether that's like too many people, too many cars, but they do. and they did not bring this up as an issue. so that leads me to conclude there is no issue. okay. no, that that that helps describe what happened because the appellants are talking about there's double parking, there's triple parking. it's a busy corridor. everyone knows that that area is very, very busy bikes a lot of people. so i just

want to get a sense as to as the city does review this. what what the extent of the of as you described it. no direct impact on health thoroughly reviewed by the department on traffic safety. the other question i had is in all those various experts that touched, touched the touched, examined, reviewed, use their expertise were was there an opportunity for the appellants people like the appellants neighbors the public to have an input into those reviews, i don't think so. i mean, this is a ministerial review project, neighborhood notification wasn't required, although it appears that neighborhood outreach was conducted. if someone was very concerned about public safety, for instance, they can certainly

reach out to us and we can go ahead and discuss with the appropriate staff regarding those issues. i was not aware that that happened, that there was any sort of outreach, from the neighborhood regarding public safety for this project, in reading the appeal, it was more about the unit size being too small, the project being too dense, and concern that that in itself will cause some sort of unsafe living conditions. well, if i read the material and my recollection is correct, they talked about the traffic issues, parking. but there's no parking here. there's no parking required. well i'm not saying i'm not saying it's required. i'm saying that it will cause these problems. now, we may say it's that that issue is waived or something else, but i just i want to have a clear

understanding of what the city's process is given that it's truncated. i'm not i'm not suggesting that the city didn't do something it should have done. i just want i think the public ought to know when the department says there is no, there are no particular concerns. you've enumerated a bunch of them. what? the meaning behind that is. so thank you for explaining that. thank you, commissioner epler. thank you very, very briefly. i feel like we've gotten a little, you know, perhaps fixated on, on the number of units and correct me if i'm wrong, we're talking about 35 units in the structure. what was the number of units in the structure prior to the fire? the structure was a 28 room sro hotel. okay. so that that my math is seven additional units i think so okay. thank you. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. we'll now hear from dbi, inspector birmingham, did you want to

weigh in, very briefly. good evening, president lopez. members of the board, dbi did review this thoroughly, and we believe it meets all codes and the size of the units were specified under section 12 08.4, which does state the minimum size of the living space. unit should be 220. and as you've heard and we confirmed that the minimum the smallest unit is 243ft!s, which is 23ft!s larger than the minimum unit. and we believe this was properly reviewed and we would say deny the appeal and grant the permit. okay thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. we'll take public comment first from people in the room. so if you could line up against the wall and after you're done speaking, if you could hand, alec longway a speaker card with your name legibly written on it, that would be great. so you can please approach and you have you

can give it to alec. thank you. you have three minutes. please go ahead. great hi. my name is ruth ferguson. i am a bernal heights neighbor and i am speaking in strong support of 3300 mission. i am a homeowner in bernal heights. i live just a few blocks away on santa marina street, as you heard, this building burned down in 2016 and displaced the residents who lived inside of it. so now this this project replaces critically needed affordable units in our neighborhood. as you heard, this project sits on one of the most transit rich corridors in the city, and it won't cause strain on the neighboring community. in fact, i actually took the bus today from the stop. that's just like one block away from this project. and i've taken that bus or bus route nearly every day for years now, there wasn't any parking in this building previously, as i think you heard, and our community was

just fine, i walk right by this building also all the time, and it would personally make me feel a lot safer knowing that the building was inhabited and not left vacant for another decade, concerning neighborhood character and environmental issues, 3310 mission was actually just recently built, and the residents in their building actually didn't cause strain on our community. and so we would like i would like as a member in the community, as a member of d9, neighbors for housing. we would like new neighbors in in 3300 mission, and we'd like them to benefit from the same rich resources and benefits that the neighbors in 3310 mission have benefited from our state, and our city desperately needs to build housing and specifically to build affordable housing. these units just replace units for the most part, that are already there. it's a really dense you know, or trousers transit dense

corridor. it's a busy location with a lot of resources, grocery stores, all sorts of things nearby. and i would like more neighbors in my neighborhood. so thank you for your consideration and i hope you deny this appeal. thank you to the gentleman standing in front of the door. yeah, thanks. you just have to keep it open for fire egress reasons. okay. next speaker, please. thank you. good evening everyone. my name is sam moss. i'm the executive director of mission housing development corporation. we've been building and owning 100% affordable housing in san francisco, mostly in the mission district, for 53 years. we also co built crocker-amazon, a senior apartment building with bernal heights housing corp, bernal heights neighborhood center, almost 20 years ago. and i have nothing but amazing things to say about the bernal heights neighborhood corp and their position as a landlord and community member, i'm here as a parent of two young kids as well, a renter who would love to stay in the city, who wants to

keep raising my family here. but i also want seniors and teachers and first responders and caregivers and food service workers to have housing. and this is what's being built when a company like bernal heights applies, and, you know, i think that, we should celebrate a little bit because this is most likely the last appeal of 100% affordable housing in san francisco's history. i wanted to bring cupcakes, but i got off work late, so just imagine that i gave them to you, we have to stop letting people weaponize the process to delay and stop 100% affordable housing. it is unacceptable. and i hope that you deny this appeal on just knowing that it should not be acceptable, and so with that, i just want to thank you for the opportunity to speak once again. just give mission housing on behalf of our 4000 tenants and our 50 plus buildings, our full approval of the 3300 development. and i ask that you deny this appeal. thank you.

thank you so for the next speaker. after you're done, please come forward. after you're done speaking. if you can fill out a speaker card and hand it to alec. oh, you're already prepared. wonderful. thank you. good evening, president jose lopez, vice president alex lemberg. and commissioners, my name is anthony menjivar, proud member of carpenters local 22. ten years in the trade, san francisco native raised in the mission district. basically 3300 mission streets, it's a beacon of hope for carpenters for some of my brothers and sisters that are working and who are currently not working, who have to travel to the valley to provide a hot meal for their family, being able for them to work at 3300 mission street, which will be closed, they'll be able to spend more time with their family, especially if they have young children. so please thank you for your time. thank you. next speaker, please. hi. my name is sarah rogers, and i'm

also representing district nine neighbors for housing. i've lived in bernal for 16 years and i love bernal heights. i love it for a lot of reasons, but two of the biggest ones are its diversity and its neighborliness, but bernal, unfortunately, has not built much housing at all in the last 15 years, and almost no affordable housing. and it is this lack of building that truly threatens the neighborhood character, but this project is a bright spot it's in. as other speakers have mentioned, it's in a vibrant corridor. it's in. i'm a transit writer, and i think it's the best bus corridor in the city. and, you know, housing promotes community. it promotes vibrancy, public safety, even pedestrian safety. i would argue that this area is not very safe right now because of people kind of speeding through, because there's not something there, and, you know, it's all housing promotes the magic that bernal is known for. so i urge you to reject this appeal. and thank you for the opportunity to speak. thank you. next speaker,

please. hi there. my name is jennifer keith. i'm a bernal heights neighbor. i've lived in bernal heights since 1991. i walk by that, that building all the time, and i just wanted to say, bernal has really gentrified since i've lived here over the past 30 years. and one of the things that the neighborhood center does is make sure that people who have lived in bernal for maybe even generations, get to stay, and i don't know any other neighbor. i mean, i don't know what other neighborhoods are doing, but i just feel so grateful that they, keep the neighborhood diverse and keep these people here with us so that it doesn't just become so gentrified that we don't have any diversity at all in our neighborhood. and, so i urge you to reject the appeal. thank you so much. thank you. next speaker. hi. hello

president lopez, vice president levi and commissioners, my name is william wilcox. i'm the bond program manager at the mayor's office of housing and community development. and i'm also the project manager for this transaction, i handle housing finance at the department, and i do project management on a number of transactions, but delaying this today could lose the project. $24 million in state funds. that has been awarded. if we can't make that november deadline, it will be rescinded. the developers could be subject to negative points, which would make them ineligible for future awards for a time. there's also no real. it's not sure that they would get the award if they applied again next year. it would delay it at least nine months a year, and then that could make it financially infeasible for my department to fund it. it would be more costly. that would either take funds away, either the project would go away completely, or we would have to take funds from future projects and build less affordable housing in san francisco, we have underwritten this deal in great detail. i

have reviewed it throughout its stage. they have done a great deal of community outreach that was not required with public meetings, and i actually provided the appellants with the contact email for the developers in july of last year when they wrote just to oppose it without any other context for it. at that time, after we had posted a large sign outside the building stating the intent to fund affordable housing at that site, so we'd ask that you reject this appeal because we are committed to funding and building affordable housing in this community, and this will preserve the excellent facade on the exterior of the building, and with that, yes, we ask you to reject the appeal. and thank you so much for your time. thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, mr. president. vice president, commissioners, my name is mauricio chavez. i'm an organizer for carpenters local

22 here in san francisco county, we represent close to 37,000 members across the northern 46 counties. i work for the 4000 members, particularly here in san francisco county, first of all, i would like to voice my support for this project and ask that you deny the appeal, the developer has chosen to use guzman construction. that's a union signatory. general contractor, san francisco based, minority owned construction business. they will be continuing to put apprentices to work and to learn the craft from the older journeymen. such has been done for over 1000 years. secondly, this appeal is exactly why the carpenters chose to champion ab 2011 sb 423, sb four because the appeal process has been used to hold up projects which inevitably caused them to be aborted, canceled, no longer feasible financially, and as

council and planning department said, the ministerial process of the ab 2011 project, i'm not even sure if the board of appeals can stop the project or i'm sure they can continue it. you know, no disrespect, but through the process, the extensive process that the planning department and all the boxes that have been checked off and everything seems to be in order, i strongly urge you to deny the appeal and to let the project commence. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. hello, i'm laurie keynes and i've lived in bernal heights. i'm a homeowner for the past 30 years with my family, not too far from this project. unfortunately. we saw it burn and the firefighters come put out the flames and we've been waiting ever since for something to be built there. it's been an eyesore. i also have a store. i'm a merchant. i'm the head of the bernal heights merchants association, and i have a store

in the bernal heights neighborhood center. i'm there, my landlord and i've seen all the good that they do with the community, with the seniors and the youth projects there. but i've also been through a pandemic, along with the other merchants in bernal heights and the mission corridor. we've seen foot traffic decrease with amazon. it's decreased even further, and we have great hopes for this area, especially the merchant bernal corridor, to be redeveloped to bring people there, to bring foot traffic there. it's been very difficult for merchants, and this new project gives us hope, especially with the ground floor, new people coming in and all. it will support all the other businesses along the corridor. so i'm very much in support of this project. thank you. thank you. is there anyone else in the room who wants to provide public comment? okay, we're moving on to zoom. marsha bashar zadeh, can i put. yes. hello? yes. hello my name is martha, and i'm sorry. there's a

little feedback. one moment. yeah okay. go ahead. okay my name is marsha facade, and i'm actually one of the one of the homeowners. right across. do you have a computer and a phone open? no, i have my ipad. they keep turning on their. can you hear me now? you can go now. thank you. i'll reset your time. okay. my name is ramin jafarzadeh, and i'm one of the homeowners who lives right across the street from this project, the reason that i'm here is i'm actually trying to, first of all, i'd like to mention that i'm all for, low, i guess, like a budget, low affordable housing. but at the same time, i do like to make sure that when the city is building new housing, they do it in a proper fashion. now, i've been listening to all the

reasonings from the defendants of this project, and there are a few pointers about the location that these guys have not pointed out. this building is right across the building where underneath of it there is a ups. there is a usps, there is a daycare, and there are also other businesses. during daytime, we are often troubled with double parking, triple parking along the 29th street. oftentimes cars are parking parked in front of our garage to be able to get out and come in, and they are blocking our garage way. this is the state right now. the status of the neighborhood right now. now, if you give permission, without considering, without taking into consideration the environmental issues that is causing for other neighbors, i think you're not doing any favors, even to the people who are moving into this building. the lady from the

planning department pointed out that this has been well studied, and we have even provided open space for this for the tenants of this building. and she's mentioning the rooftop. if you actually ever come to this area and go to the rooftop in the evening, the wind will blow your way. so the bottom line is that i don't think they have done a proper study. again, i'm all for low affordable housing, but at the same time, i do believe that it has to be done properly so that for the tenants who are also moving in, the, people who are moving in, it would be a pleasant experience. otherwise we will be faced with a with a house, with a building that is going to be half empty and the people who are moving in will try to get out as soon as they move in. thank you so much. thank you. jodi sales, please go ahead. hi there. it's actually jodi, i oppose this development. i don't oppose affordable housing, but the six stories is too high. i feel that it should

exist at the three. the six stories that will create a wind tunnel on the 29th street corridor. it blocks every single view. i know views are not owne, but you can't even see vernal hill anymore from dolores or from san jose street, also, as far as transportation is concerned, the transportation actually is very congested. sometimes i have to wait 3 or 4 busses just to get downtown, so i'm not sure who's having an easy time of hopping on the busses. there but they must be. not during peak hours, as well. this fire was incredibly toxic, so i'm surprised there were no environmental studies done when the fire happened. i had to actually leave my condo for several days because of the fumes and toxicity. so i think it's odd that there's no study beyond that. and then again, as

far as parking is concerned, we already have parklet. we already have citi bike there. so now you want to put in even more biking spots and move it over to tiffany, where we're already getting a lot of congestion on both of these streets because of the parking issue. and this many units will create even less parking. you won't be able to park at all, i think with the lack of light, i think with, pedestrians trying to cross the road all of the time, it's going to cause safety issues and personally, i just think that there won't be enough emergency services. as it stands, it takes 7 to 10 minutes for a 911 call to be addressed. that is all. thank you. okay thank you. we will now hear from robert fruchtman. please go ahead. how about me? why don't i get on? hello? yes please go ahead. hi, my name is robert druckman. i

live in district five, i live in a neighborhood of, five and six story buildings. i i have, i don't think neighborhood characters is an issue. and frankly, it's, i think anyone who supports affordable housing really would not say i support affordable housing, but you don't follow the sentence. i support affordable housing with a but, this is affordable housing. i support it, period. frankly, i agree with, one of the commenters, sam moss, who said that we should celebrate that this is the last appeal of affordable housing in san francisco. i think this appeal is, proof in the pudding that if it were not for state intervention, the city would continue on the path it was formerly on, which would be to allow spurious appeals of perfectly good housing projects

such as this one. you know, deputy zoning administrator tam said that this project is very typical, that the waivers requested in the state density bonus law are very typical. the only thing that's atypical here is san francisco's onerous permitting process that creates the need for appeals or creates the opportunity for appeals such as this one. i urge the board of appeals to for god's sake, oppose to deny this this appeal and support the project. thank you. okay. thank you. we will now hear from jeremy schaub. please go ahead. jeremy schaub i think i'm unmuted now. yes, i can hear you. thank you. hi, my name is jeremy schaub with shively architects back in 2016, after the fire, my firm worked on the adjacent project at 2920 ninth street, where we did a vertical addition. we also then

met with the developer of 3310 mission street, several times before, during and after their construction to coordinate our mutual easement. because of this experience, several builders contacted us looking at 3300 mission street. this project site, this current proposed project seems like the only feasible solution to retain the existing units and create new, affordable housing. since then, i've also moved nearby and frequent the businesses on 29th and mission. this is a bustling commercial district that will only benefit from additional residents. this is adjacent to many restaurants, a safeway, a hospital, a post office along with some of the best pizza, ice cream and fried chicken in san francisco. this building has been vacant for eight years, so please reject the appeal and approve the project. okay. thank you. we will now hear from noam kadim. please go ahead. hello.

can i speak? no, it's not your turn. noam kadim, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. noam kadim. okay. can you hear me now? yes okay. thank you very much. first of all, again, i also appreciate, the, the projects of this type. i have a couple of questions, though, that i would like to hear some answers for if possible, one is, aside from the like when i look at the building that is proposed, the sketches of what was proposed, it looks like someone slapped half of 199 tiffany's on top of what's left from from this building after the fire. it doesn't look like the two pieces even belong together. and i'm curious about that design. and the reason i'm curious about it here and not before, is because unlike what was said before, there was an

insinuation that there was an outreach. and the outreach is composed of the word out and reach it needs to reach. i've never had any notification about anything that relates to this building arrive at the building that i'm in, which is 199 tiffany across the street, and my question to the board is the attorney mentioned that regarding the timeline of the oversight that it expired in december, and i'm curious whether the board of appeals actually looked at this project at all. and was it discussed? and if not, why, the next question that i have, the fourth question is we're looking at six floors. from what i understand, with 35 units, five of which i think are commercial units. and yet there is zero parking, unlike the building again, across the street, which has parking, built two floors of parking underground. this building has no plans to have any more parking, which again leads to congestion and problems with parking, which are already prevalent on 29th street and,

lastly, we already have a very, very strange sewage system on 29th street. and my question i've had for catastrophic sewage events in my commercial unit on 199 tiffany's, as have had the ups store, the usps, the kindergarten. we've all had issues with sewage and my question is whether these 35 units, has anyone done any kind of survey to see whether the sewage system in that street can even get, you know, with, with these many units in inactive mode? so this is these are my questions and i would love to have some way of addressing them. but again, i am in support of the general idea of a project like this. okay thank you. we'll now hear from the person who has the ipad. ma'am, it's your turn to speak. i don't see a name associated with you. can you hear me? yes, please. go ahead. can you hear me? go ahead. yeah.

my name is cynthia dellosa. i'm a native san franciscan. i've lived in this neighborhood my whole life. i'm 74 years old. i live directly across the street from that. that 3300. and i'm totally opposed to this buildin. the building is hideous. have you guys seen the building number one? number two, the bernal heights neighborhood center is also trying to build where i live at 190 coleridge, 70 more units across the street. this is going to be congestion. horrible. i don't see how they can let this go through. and no, they don't didn't do an outreach to all the people i totally will lose. the sky is all i have left after they built 3310. i used to be able to see the mountain. now i can't see anything. they built that pyramid on top of that building. i will have no sky. i will have nothing to look at. i only have a few years left of my life, and i would like to at least see my sky. i totally oppose this and i think you guys

are all ridiculous thinking this should go through. there's other places in the city where they could build housing with empty lots. there's parking lots that are empty all over the city, and that's all i can say right now because i'm very upset. thank you. we'll now hear from lala woo. please go ahead. hi my name is lala woo and i've lived in the. i lived in san francisco for over 11 years with the last three years just 0.1 miles from this site. that we're talking about. i'm also here representing d9 neighbors for housing to strongly support this project. i love this city. i've made it my home. i'm raising a family here because i believe in our our ability to make it work for everyone. but one great step toward this vision of san francisco that works for everyone is to approve this project and this part of the mission, bernal is one of the city's most vibrant areas. i brag about it to friends who, inside and outside of the city

all the time, and these plans would greatly enhance the neighborhood's character. this building burned down almost a decade ago and really has just been this huge eyesore and missed opportunity year over year. we now have this chance to help revitalize both the neighborhood in the city we desperately need more housing in the city, and if not this place that is so well served by transit and businesses and is so vibrant than where i understand there are empty parking lots across the city, and we should absolutely be building in those places. and we should also build in places that have incredible transit, you know, i understand the concern about double parking, and i feel for you all, but that solution is enforcement. it's not deciding against building much needed housing as for the transit and the busses, i take the bus regularly, several times a week, both at peak hours and at non-peak hours. during peak hours, it's a little bit full. i've never had any issues getting on my first bus. this is

very, very well served by the 14 to 49. they come very, very, very frequently, you know, i am just so hopeful for this opportunity and really excited about it. i appreciate the chance to speak today, and i'm excited to see the project come into fruition. thanks. thank you. sandy aylesworth. please go ahead. good evening commissioners. my name is sandy aylesworth and i live in bernal heights. i moved here with my husband a couple of years ago, really excited about bernal heights for its incredibly thriving community. businesses and residents. i should also mention that i'm with d9 neighbors for housing, and i'm calling in support of the development at 3300 mission and would love for it to proceed without delay. i urge the board to deny the appeal, as everyone here knows, the need for affordable housing in san francisco is urgent, and as a bernal heights resident, i really want to welcome new

neighbors and very much support affordable housing, which underpins any vibrant and diverse community. 3300 mission is a model project that has included extensive community engagement and a really beautiful collaboration among ngos, the developer, the mayor's office, and the san francisco housing accelerator fund. and in addition to enhancing our community by offering affordable housing, the development also has a community space and a commercial space which really contribute to the community. okay. and i guess in conclusion, i just sort of wonder if we can't build this sort of development. i wonder what kind of affordable housing options we're going to be able to build in san francisco. so again, thanks for the opportunity to comment, and i urge you to reject the appeal. thank you. we'll now hear from mike hankin.

please go ahead, hi. can you hear me? yes wonderful, hey, i'm mike hankin, i'm also here as part of d9 neighbors for housing. i'm a homeowner. i live about a block away, and i've been in the neighborhood for, i don't know, kind of seven years now. i think, calling in support of the project and, urging you to reject the appeal. this neighborhood is incredibly rich, incredibly vibrant, it's also fairly affluent and extremely transit rich and it's just had no development, no added housing in decades, i cannot think of anywhere that would better support more housing. and i can't think of a project that is just a simpler yes than this, you know, i first of all, i don't think there's any reason to make this a smaller, but it's pretty clear that if it were smaller, it wouldn't pencil and nothing would get built. which is why we just have had this burnt out husk for a decade. i

if anything, i would like this to be bigger. i'm thrilled to have more neighbors. i'm thrilled that we've added 3310. and thrilled to have all those people as neighbors, neighbors, all those people's people as neighbors. and, i, yeah, just strongly urge you guys to reject this appeal, in terms of the double parking, that's absolutely a problem over there. that is a problem driven by the nature of the businesses there. so you've got a bunch of things where people are running in to drop something off ups, and usps having more people in walking distance from, from those businesses who aren't going to have to drive there is not going to worsen that, i mean, i agree enforcement, i don't know, i don't even know what the solution is to that. but like making it, reducing the number of people who can live on a corner. that's not it. so anyway, strongly urge you guys to reject this appeal. thanks. thank you. steven torres, please

go ahead. good evening, president lopez. vice president. libby. commissioners. my name is steven torres. i'm a longtime resident of the neighborhood and a former entertainment commissioner. as such, i ask that you deny this appeal. although i have serious concerns in regards to the impacts of ab 2011 on commercial corridors and environmental review, i appreciate that the permit holders were receptive to these concerns and understand the importance of retaining the historic character, and strongly urge that every effort should be made to ensure the commercial space and building at large reflect the thriving nightlife character of the neighborhood. i think the permit holder well understands that should this project unsuccessfully match the neighborhood, what impacts that will have on its future projects? finally, we are in a housing crisis and the sheer volume of low income units being potentially lost allows the balance to fall in favor of this project moving forward. thank you. thank you, stacy randecker.

please go ahead. hi, my name is stacy. i actually live over in potrero in d10, but i'm going to call in for any chance to build more housing. i am, i am really embarrassed that for people who who want to deny 100% affordable housing, i mean, it's a burnt out building. it was an sro before. like, why do you why are people against people? why do people want to see people live in rvs, live in tents, or be priced out? gentrification happens because we don't have enough units. people keep having kids. i've got two of my own. and you know what? i'd like them to be able to go to college and come back to san francisco and live here if they want and not have to live with mom. if we don't keep building units for the kids that we have, there's no chance of them coming back, let alone anyone else who might

want to live here. and if you haven't noticed, we're in the midst of a climate crisis and we are blessed with one of the most magnificent, magnificent climates on earth. we talk about being a sanctuary city. we've been a sanctuary city for the gay and lesbian community. we have been a sanctuary city for people from other nations who are having, you know, are fleeing from awful circumstances. we are going to have to be a sanctuary city for the climate. there should be paris at minimum six stories throughout this entire city and with punctuated with 50 story buildings in pockets. here and there. seriously, i am, i am taken aback that after all this time, after all the legislation, after having this on a national stage, after having the white house point san francisco out, that people have the guts to come up here and say or the guts

the audacity to say, no, i don't think, oh, affordable housing, but not this one. no, it's got to stop. i urge you, deny this appeal and don't hear a single other one. thank you. thank you, hugh hines. please go ahead. yes. hi. so i'm a resident of tiffany avenue about a block away from the project and also a small business owner on mission street, about a half block from the project, and i wanted to come out in strong support of the project and urge that you deny the appeal, you've heard this evening about the impact of the fire in 2016, and you know, it's been really unfortunate to see how that derelict building has had a negative impact on the community, and one could read about blight, but it's definitely another thing to sort of see it happening before your very eyes, so while i'm sympathetic to many of the appellants concerns, some of

which i agree with, some of which i don't, i would like to point out that, you know, let's let's say that we take their their concerns for granted, the potential deleterious effects of a new housing project are far, far outweighed by the deleterious effects of this blighted, derelict building that we've been living with for eight years, and one of the other commenters alluded to this, but in terms of the size of the building, you may be aware that i believe in 2018 there was another development proposal that was put forward for this building that kept within the envelope, did not add any additional storeys and it went through, you know, a number of different iterations, but unfortunately didn't go forward just because it didn't pencil out. it wasn't viable. and so while i haven't seen the pro forma, i do think there's obviously a kind of a significant, benefit to having additional units added to this, if it's going to really make the

project viable and, and really make sure that this is able to move forward and not just stay as a derelict building. and then the last point i did want to make was that, as a resident and a business owner, have been quite impressed with how the project applicant has done their outreach. it's unfortunate that clearly not all the neighbors, were contacted or informed, but i do feel as if very much a good faith effort was made on the part of the applicant to reach out. they they solicited our input. they they heard what we had to say, and i definitely feel satisfied that they did did what they needed to do in terms of considering community impact. so thank you very much. thank you. christian gainsley. please go ahead. hi. my name is christian gainsley. i own a business on mission street about a block away, i also am a resident of bernal heights. i want to take up too much of your time. i just want to state that i thoroughly support this

project and request that you deny this appeal. thanks. thank you. the phone number ending in 2251. please go ahead. you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. hi there. yes, i am a deaf caller. i know there's going to be a little bit of a delay. just be patient and bear with me. i live across 150ft from the hotel, and i just want to let you know what i've seen. you know, there's nine buildings that have the fire and all of the water flooding. i mean, just the smell, you know, after that, you know, there's been this sewer water has been flooding. it's just been messy around the neighborhood and around it. after that, you know, the structure being left there. and it's sad, you know, before, you know, i lived in that place for

14 years. i've seen, the hotel, you know, people smoking, throwing it down, out of the, the windows. you know, i saw the top floor, and the wind and all of that. and also there were drug busts at that hotel before, so, you know, you think it's safe. it's not it's not safe. you know, we are allowing that in and all of the, you know, there's stuff that you know is not safe around and it's really not. and i've spent so much money trying to take care of my place. and it's costing everybody money keeping it for history purposes. i completely disagree with that. and i really read really want it torn down and something there for more room. you know, that building is nothing special. and to be honest and nothing pretty. you

know, i see it. it's in front of my face every single day. i see the smoking, all of the time. and, you know, these are the things that i see. there are no rules that forbid smoking and nothing like that. so my point is that that radius location is awful. the parking, i can't get out and i can't get in the traffic is so, so overwhelming and so bad. and yes, the car accidents have increased. they are becoming more and more frequent. it's not safe. there's you know, i'm scared to even just walk across the street because it's always busy people speeding, just flying by. bicyclists are being hurt. and to think that it's safe, i really think seconds i disagree and you know, in the past 14 years, to be honest, let's go ahead and tear it up and tear it, tear it down and build it up

and make everything high end equivalent. thank you for your time and listening. thank you. are there any other people who want to provide public comment on zoom? please raise your hand. okay, i don't see any. so we're going to move on to rebuttal and we'll hear from mr. wall. do you have three minutes? yes. okay. we're going to take a five minute bio break. thank you so much. thanks for your patience commissioners okay. welcome back to the august 28th, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are resuming item five, appeal number 24 042 at 3300 mission street. and we are on the rebuttal portion and we will hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. thank you. thank you again for hearing our case and giving us this opportunity to speak. i will say it isn't necessarily fun to sit and hear mischaracterizations or questioning of our character. in

fact, as somebody who grew up in a rent controlled apartment, deeply cares about the increasing affordable housing, i speak on behalf of my neighbors that we do indeed want to see a 100% affordable housing development next to us. and yes, if i say, but that does not mean that i do not care about affordable housing. we do care about this, and we are want to increase the vitality of our neighborhood. the reality is, though, is that there have been no environmental studies conducted. we did not have a proper as noted, the city has not done an understood or realized the impacts of what this will mean on our neighborhood, and that is a legitimate concern that we do have. and fear. we do fear. the fact that people it was mentioned earlier, the traffic accidents just two weeks ago outside as i am my window is

open. i hear a massive car accident i do. we do have genuine concerns about this. and so there are reasons why a city conducts environmental impact, safety and traffic. if that's the case and we shouldn't be doing this anymore, i would hope that the city then just does away with this. but we don't do away with these things because we care about the community and the safety of our community, and this is the type of thing of where we would this merits further study or to understand the impact on what it will be for the neighborhood and not just a rush job, because there's $24 million backing this, that to come through. there should be a more thoughtful approach that will affect the entire neighborhood and understand what it means for my neighbor, who cannot get out when they need to. my neighbors who cannot get out of their home with a new baby and wants to go and needs to deal with get out of their home. me who i have been stuck

and had to wait for someone to move their car for over 30 minutes and missed important work appointments. this will increase. there will be greater degree of this and we should understand what that is for everybody before we make such a significant change in decision. 30s in terms of the scope of this, if it stayed within the current structure scope, height limits and was of the character of before i, there's no objection if it is to completely transform the building in this particular case and what that effect will be. at a minimum, it does merit further an additional proper review that this city would do in any other case or any other exception. and yet we are not going to do it in this particular case. thank you. okay. we thank you. we have a question from vice president levy. thank you, i, i want to underscore something that the city has done away with these levels of review. the reason these levels of review have not

occurred in this case is because state and local laws have been passed to do away with them, that's why it hasn't happened. it's not because the city isn't doing its duty. they're following the laws of what the lawmakers are passing, with that in mind, i want to run a little thought experiment, which is if we were to hear your argument and grant an appeal, what relief would you and your your neighbors and the other appellants be seeking here, apart from full rescission of the of the permit? great. that's a great question. i think there's two perspectives on that. the first one is at a minimum, if it's going to go beyond the scope of what it already exists, there should be studies to understand what that what the impact of that scope is. and if it's, and therefore, but if it's a, the next remedy is to have it stick within the scope that it currently exists. and stick within that, not to go

beyond that scope. you're taking an existing building and putting another massive building on top of this. and it is ironic that we talk about the winds because i actually experienced these winds nightly, and i was a bit surprised moving into this neighborhood, how significant these winds are and how uncomfortable that they can be. and i have things, something rattling on the side of my building that i hear the winds are it's this huge wind tunnel that comes through. and yet we're talking about putting a massive building on top of an existing building right next to where i live with a lot of other people, it's the scope issue, right? so the scope that's being presented is the scope of the project as far as i'm aware. and we can ask the project sponsors that too, but they cannot get expand the scope without going through the permitting process.

the permitting process. again, i'm referring to the scope and of how the building is now. if someone if it was redone under the current structure of what's redone and we were able to redo it, there's no objection from the neighbor from the neighboring community. if you're talking about adding another building on top of this, that goes up all of these heights, then within this wind tunnel, then yes, that does create concern for us from a safety perspective. okay all right. i think that's all i've got. thank you, thank you, thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. i pull up one of my slides. sure. okay. computer, please. thank you. okay, i'd like to respond to a few points that were raised by

the appellant and some of the speakers. the first is that sur, the project is higher than the base height and has additional units than under the base density, but under density bonus law that's permitted. the next point is the appellant said that the fire in 2016 burned down the existing building and also other buildings next door. and that's not true. it just burned the interior of 3300 mission, and the fire was not caused because of too much density at the site. it was caused because a cigarette butt was put in a dumpster. another point that was raised multiple times is this project is exempt from sequa. so no environmental studies were required. this project did go through the proper processes and procedures. next, and this is my

slide, this large sign on 3300 mission was posted in november 2023. so you can see next door 3310 mission. it's very close. so for the appellant to state that they didn't know that the project was coming, it's that's just not true. i mean, there were other community outreach efforts and we have berg davis, a representative from berg davis here who can speak to those, another point that was raised is parking impacts and traffic. but the existing building, before it burned down, there was no parking and it contained not only sro units, but also transient hotel units. so there was no parking for that project. another point that was raised was that concerns about environmental impacts related to the fire of the building, and a phase one was prepared and the

consultant recommended that no further action, no phase two was required to be prepared. and so as, deputy zoning administrator tam mentioned, it meets the requirements under ab 2011 and then a couple final points about the building being stacked on top of a building. the project proposes reconstructing the building, and so in retaining the facade so it's not stacking on top of the existing building. and then the last point is that berg davis and our community outreach team hosted an open house community meeting with over 80 attendees. and that meeting was hosted at 199 tiffany avenue. and you've heard from a few community members about our community outreach efforts. thank you. thank you. we have a couple questions from vice president levy and commissioner trevino. thank you,

my question is a simple one. what type of affordable housing is this? low and very low, yes. but how is it? how is that being determined? and who's administering the program? is it done through mohcd and the bmr program, or is it other types of affordable housing? hi, yes. mohcd will lease up these units through dahlia, our centralized leasing. they are restricted at 30% ami, 55% ami and 80% ami. these reach some of the lowest income san franciscans. while also providing housing to a range. to provide enough income to the building to operate it long term and keep it running. and in excellent condition. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner trevino, thank you for your various testimonies. if you could, i'm trying to reconcile, something you you you

responded to commissioner eppler. if i understood your exchange with him, there were 28 units before, and now there will be 35. and i know you're changing the first floor into what was residential, into commercial? is that. is that right? the first floor has always been commercial. yeah. so so how so? can you explain the three extra floors are only accruing eight more units and they're all really small. well there's a couple of things. so one, there were 28 sro units and there were certain number of transient hotel rooms, i don't know, off the top of my head how many rooms there were, and then i guess the response that we, you know, talked about earlier, the unit sizes, we're adding an additional three levels and the units are larger. so for the

than the previous year for 3300 mission. do you know how many people live there before or how many units there were before and how many there will be in the in this proposal, like what's the net? yeah, no, don't quote me on this. but i think it was somewhere between like 5070 to do, you know. so i think there were 26 to 28 units. it's 13 or 14 units per floor and none of them met code in terms of area or fire requirements or access requirements. they were really small. they will not meet the current codes if you have to design to current codes, you can get only seven units. they meet the current codes for area. sorry i'm not i'm not questioning the justification. all i want to know is the numbers. yeah, we just can't build 13 units out there. i'm not asking whether you can or you can't. i just want to know how many were there before and

how many will there be, there are 13 or 14 before now. there will be seven per floor. can you give me a number rather than seven per floor? is it 42, 28 and 35? there was 28 before 28, 28. i'm hearing 28 from the audience. and 38 from you. 28, 20, 28 were existing before. okay, 38 were existing before 2028, 28 were existing before. and how many units will there be when this is built? 35. so, and you're adding three additional floors. we are adding three more floors. yeah. so the three more floors are accruing seven more units. yes. overall seven more units. yes the units are larger. units are larger. you need like two egress stairs. you need an

elevator. none of that was existing before in the existing building. but we have three. we have three floors before. yeah. now we're having six, and we're going from 28 to 35. yes okay. okay. thank you. okay. thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the planning department. thank you, tina tam, for the planning department, the state density bonus law has been around since the late 1970s. san francisco adopted the individually requested state density bonus program as part of planning code section 206.6. in 2017, to implement state law. to reiterate, there's been 65 projects with a total of 7800 units that have been approved under state density bonus program since 2017. like 3300

mission. all of these 65 projects received waivers from the development standards of the planning code. there's no denying many of these projects are larger in size and denser than many of their surrounding buildings. for some, these projects may represent a transformation or a drastic change in a neighborhood. however, under the goals and objectives of state law, this is the anticipated trade off for the creation of more housing, particularly more affordable housing. the 35 proposed studio units will be on the upper stories levels two through six, with seven units per floor on the ground floor, there will be a 700 square foot neighborhood commercial retail space, common area supportive services for the residents and a manager's unit.

the project complies with ab 2011 and state law eligibility criteria. the department supports this project and recommends that you deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of the permit. okay. thank you. no questions. is there anything further from dbi? no, just that this project was properly reviewed and we believe the appeal should be denied and the permit should be upheld. thank you. so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. thank you. we'll start the comments with commissioner swig and work our way this way before for, i yield the floor. i would like to, to ask miss huber from the city attorney's office. just. if you could confirm for us the standard of review in the matter. i think we've had some testimony from, from planning about that, but i want to make

sure that we are all on the same page, especially with respect to ab 2011. so the board's typical de novo standard of review does not apply here. ab 2011 requires the board to review the project. ministerially, a ministerial standard is one that involves only the use of objective standards. in this case, those standards are the objective planning standards under state and local code. thank you, commissioner swig, thank you for that preface, because i was going to say that this project meets the objective standards, which are, contemplated in the law, it's compliant, the waivers are appropriate, the waivers that have been issued are appropriate. and are nothing that has been offered to any other project. so it's we're not doing an exception to the rule,

there's a housing need in the city, this meets the goals of the city in general. so i have no issues with the project, and therefore i can't support an appeal, i generally agree with that. i happen to know this area a fair a little bit. it's one of my favorite parts of the city because it is such a vibrant corridor with great restaurants and great little shops and formerly on this site, a great little bar that's, that's been gone since since the fire. it's nice to see the retail component to that, i understand the concerns of, of a lot of the neighbors because we're in you know, this board is in a very limited role due to state law, and the state law has changed the way that we go about development in the neighborhood. and you're you're not alone in this. in my neighborhood, we have at least two and i think three projects going along, two of them going great. one of them a little a little bit rougher.

but you know, that's a function of, of developer and outreach. and it does seem the developer has, you know, long standing ties to, to this neighborhood and a vested interest in its, in its ongoing, vitality. and, you know, you've had outreach and, and conversation about this project in a way that wasn't necessary, but in a way that reflects what i think we all know as citizens of the city that when developers and neighbors get together, usually projects get a little bit better and get a little bit better until there's something that works for the most of the folks. now, that's all irrelevant to what it is that we're deciding here tonight because of our limited scope of review, i was hoping that we'd get into a detailed conversation about what constitutes a freeway and what doesn't, but we didn't get to that point, and, you know, we have the four concessions that were made by, by the planning department and in the limited number of waivers to make it comply with the state law and the density that was there. and you know, it's great that we have an opportunity to double check the department because sometimes mistakes are made. we

saw a mistake made earlier tonight that the department made that was a, you know, one of those kind of weird, goofy mistakes. and, you know, we need to have eyes on decisions like this. and in this case, the department did its ministerial review correctly in my opinion. and there's no basis for us to grant an appeal, i agree with the outcome. i don't see grounds on which to grant an appeal here. i just don't see them. i don't think they've been presented, i, you know, and at the same time, i want to validate what the neighbors have said because i'm very intimately familiar with the unit block of 29th street. it's one i've spent a lot of time on, i've spent time in apartments and units on this block, and it is, it is a unique block for sure, with some very unique struggles, even in compared to that neighborhood

that it's in that i don't it's always been weird to me that that neighborhood is considered bernal heights. but that's an aside, i, one of the appellant said something that i that clicked with me, which was that this merits further review and generally i agree with that sentence. sentence. i do think that this merits further review. however, as i said earlier, there is all of that review has been stripped away by mostly the state government, and if you as the neighbors and as longtime san franciscans want to, you know, get those levels of review back, the environmental review, the, you know, the various levels of review that we've been talking about, the solution to that is electing state representatives who don't believe in eliminating local levels of review. that's the solution. and unfortunately, at this point, at this advanced stage, it's the only solution. there is no other solution to

this. these laws have been, you know, done excessively. yes. we have 80 members of the assembly and 40 state senators in california, but the representatives of san francisco, oakland and berkeley have been the by far the greatest leaders of stripping away these local levels of review at the state level. so keep that in mind, please. it's really important, i also. especially since it's my last meeting, i can't let this slide that, you know, i work directly with, people who are seeking affordable housing. it's something i've done for a very long time. i used to be the only housing attorney in the bayview. i this is my bread and butter. not that i make any money off of it. i don't, but i do it a lot, we've bmrs have become such a widely accepted form of affordable housing that people have stopped questioning what affordable actually means. and i work again, directly with unhoused people who are seeking

housing. and essentially all of my unsheltered clients have stopped applying for bmr housing altogether because it's not affordable to them. and these are mostly working people who, you know, have jobs and just can't afford housing. if the affordable housing that we are building, the limited amounts of affordable housing that we are building isn't affordable to people who really need it the most. we're not doing anybody any favors, and i don't really know who this housing is being built for, if not the people who really need it the most, all that said, i can't vote to grant the appeal tonight, but i wanted to say all that. thank you. at the outset, i. i want to say that, i know miss muniz. i did not realize that as i didn't realize she was the lead witness or involved involved with this project. we go back a more than ten years. we're friends on facebook, but that does not have

any bearing on my position on this matter. i will join my colleagues in supporting the project, i recall very vividly october 2016, though sunday afternoon we heard on the news in the morning about the fire ace hardware, the building, the we went out there, went out there right away and saw with sadness that the loss of the housing, the smell, the suggestion of environmental damage to the people who were there, to the firefighters and it's been eight years. we've elected two presidents since then. we're about to elect a third. and this building still is not yet, not yet built is not the fault of the appeals. it's not the fault of the neighbors. i think we have to understand that, these people up in sacramento have demonized neighbors. people in san francisco. it's not. it's not

that this has not yet been built, but that's not because of the appeals process. it's not because of action by this board. it is it is the cause of delay is a is very complicated and we can we can. the reason why i asked some of the questions this evening and following up on some of my colleagues is because the public needs to know what is going, what has gone on in sacramento, what that means to our city charter, what that means to our neighborhoods. yes, affordable housing is critically important, but we just need to know that when we say, well, this complies with the law or we have no evidence that doesn't mean that it's safe, doesn't mean that it is there. there are no environmental hazards. it doesn't mean that there are no dangers or increased dangers to pedestrians and traffic. it just means that we can't look at that anymore. yes, the experts at the

at the department have looked at it from the mta standpoint and other standpoints, and i appreciate their expertise. i asked him about, well, is this your work or is this the department's work, because it's unfair to ask her a lot of questions about the process when it was done by the people who are responsible for it within her department and in other departments. but it's important for the public to know what goes on in these projects, how the how the decisions are made and what has now been taken off the table by sacramento. and i'm not here to tell you what to do on that aspect, but it's important that people know what comes before these what comes before us, what comes before the planning department, people and other departments as to what is being considered and what it means to say that something has been something is legally compliant. it's important that this be built. and as for as as a legal matter, our only role is

to is to the very, very constrained discretion as, as as our deputy city attorney has, has explained to us under those rules, i, i will deny the appeal and support the project. i echo that that conclusion. i did want to say, you know, despite the, the, the exchange that we had on the, the prior matter that we voted on with respect to continuance, and even though i can't agree with the appellants on the merits, i did want to say that i feel that the appellant was well represented this evening and, and i think you did a good job of, of, you know, pushing forward a, a tough position on the merits. and i also want to thank, the, the representative from mohcd for,

for speaking to how the affordability program would be administered. and also, more importantly, with respect to the stakes, you know, related to, to funding of the project, which, which i support and i would support, i think it's a good project i would support on a different standard of review. i definitely support it under the narrow standard of review that's before us, and i did want to speak to, you know, the same, you know, disappointment with, with the, with the delay with respect to development at the site, i lived down the street on valencia street, during the, the fire. i remember the that day, and very familiar with the neighborhood, frequent the neighborhood a lot, with respect to mitchell's, which i go to

frequently with my kids. i'm a big fan of a restaurant that does not exist right across the street or across the street does not exist anymore. unfortunately. good frickin chicken. i really miss that place, and so that's all to say. i'm very excited to see, hopefully see this move forward swiftly from here. and i want to thank the permit holder and the various representatives, the various folks who have spoken in support of the project, and i hope it moves forward quickly, with that, i'll make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit meets the objective standards under state law. okay. thank you. on that motion, commissioner trasvina. hi, vice president levy, i commissioner epler, i commissioner swig i so that motion carries 5 to 0 and the appeal is denied. thank you. thank you everybody. we are adjourned.

>> [music] in the town inside

here i'm young. he was putting art, music and drinking together upon today have a nonpretentious pretentious spitz that the community can enjoy each other and the time off we get in this world. [music] >> spends energy elevating artists and credit a safe place. a place to have a community. >> it is i great neighborhood the art district because we have the contemp refer museum of sf. yerba buena for the arts all of the operators and businesses here we get together and xhoukt and support each other this is a very cool neighborhood to be a part of. [music] paint on canvas is primary low when we do. this is guilty pleasures an all

female artist show. it is going to be great. fun we have interactive elements. >> we love having this gem. you know people come in and discover it and get to feel at home. this is like home san francisco >> never be afraid it anybodying on our door. [laughter]. if the hours are post and you had want to seat art we are here 9 o'clock to 5 o'clock most days. [music] chinatown. >> (music).

>> welcome to san francisco japantown. >> san francisco japantown is the oddity downtown in the united states. >> it was founded in the late 1800s by japanese immigrants for construction over the jars japantown has become a home to a japanese community with restaurants and shops and a popular tourism decision in the heart of san francisco. and san francisco and japantown is quite unique it is one of the three remaining chung's by the states and how i explain japantown we're a city within a city to taste and experience the

japanese culture but really be a community what is all about and one of the best things about japantown is the food. there are dozens of shops in the neighborhood serving from modern deserts and go with friends. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is t a leader of the japantown to we try to provide something they creates like savory yummy favors we try to provide like japanese flavor as well as for the japanese customers. >> if you're foodie or looking

for a quick and delicious meal you're sure to find something. >> it is a authentic japanese deter and drink shop special lists in we also offer a roasted green tea and we have flares and other flavors we're known for ice cream and sun disingenuous. >> japantown is a variety of culture contributions with the community center the eight amendment association of north california. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this tearoom is designed by the tearoom art (unintelligible) and then they built everything in jpa that is a a he ship it to

the united states. with the carpenter and this is one of the public only two in the united states and the japantown takes you on journey sdlts neighborhoods and the history was a self guided tour you start by japantown center west mall and work your way and learn about the history what made japantown had say is today. >> what as young people; right? what to make sure this stays here for the future. speaking of future you can enter the world of augmented reality created we adobe in a phone stand under which of the store we call that the tree ar experience a great

opportunity to do something completely different that will take you to the future with a immersion of an experience? incredible. in addition to the culture and ar contribution japantown hosted festivities and events throughout the year some are the cheri blossom festival. and after dark japantown comes life with night clubs and or joy serene moments through the illuminated part and san francisco is japantown an engaging community that likewise people to experience japanese culture with food and exciting events and japantown is a must see for any visitor to san

[music] >> san francisco is known as yerba buena, good herb after a mint that used to grow here. at this time there were 3 settlements one was mission delores. one the presidio and one was yerba buena which was urban

center. there were 800 people in 1848 it was small. a lot of historic buildings were here including pony express headquarters. wells fargo. hudson bay trading company and famous early settlers one of whom william leaderdorph who lived blocks from here a successful business person. african-american decent and the first million airin california. >> wilwoman was the founders of san francisco. here during the gold rush came in the early 1840s. he spent time stake himself as a merchant seaman and a business person. his father and brother in new orleans. we know him for san francisco's history. establishing himself here arnold

18 twoochl he did one of many things the first to do in yerba buena. was not california yet and was not fully san francisco yet. >> because he was an american citizen but spoke spanish he was able to during the time when america was taking over california from mexico, there was annexations that happened and conflict emerging and war, of course. he was part of the peek deliberations and am bas doorship to create the state of california a vice council to mexico. mexico granted him citizenship. he loaned the government of san francisco money. to funds some of the war efforts to establish the city itself and the state, of course. he established the first hotel here the person people turned to often to receive dignitaries or hold large gatherings

established the first public school here and helped start the public school system. he piloted the first steam ship on the bay. a big event for san francisco and depict instead state seal the ship was the sitk a. there is a small 4 block long length of street, owned much of that runs essentially where the transamerica building is to it ends at california. i walk today before am a cute side street. at this point t is the center what was all his property. he was the person entrusted to be the city's first treasurer. that is i big deal of itself to have that legacy part of an african-american the city's first banker. he was not only a forefather of the establishment of san francisco and california as a state but a leader in industry.

he had a direct hahn in so many things that we look at in san francisco. part of our dna. you know you don't hear his anymore in the context of those. representation matters. you need to uplift this so people know him but people like him like me. like you. like anyone who looks like him to be, i can do this, too. to have the city's first banker and a street in the middle of financial district. that alone is powerful. [music]

>> hello. i'm jaime gutierrez. san francisco is a marfbalist city full of diversity and culture. district 9 is a embodiment of diversity. the mission showcases latino culture with mural street vendors and cuisine. buno heights is aging hippies and young families. [indiscernible] most people know neighbors and value a sense of community. portola is mix of old native and new residents around the world. all these district 9 neighborhoods exlempify what is great about san francisco. yet the neighborhoods are under economic stress. a shortage of housing and