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. 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 and click on the board of appeals hearing for today's date, and then click on the zoom link on the right side of the page. public comment can also be given by telephone call one 669 906 833 and enter webinar id 84907159184. and again, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. if you are watching the live stream or

broadcast to block your phone number when calling in. first i'll star 67, then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30s before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore, it'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 ohlone, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to board of appeals at sfgovtv. 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've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do. okay. thank you. if you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. so, commissioners, we do have one announcement. the appellants for item number five, appeal number 24 040 at 700 indiana street have withdrawn their appeal. so the matter will not be heard tonight. so we will now move on to item number one. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction. but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone in the room for general public comment? is there anyone on zoom who wants to give public comment? i

don't see any hands raised, so we're going to move on to item number two. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners. commissioner zweig, given that this is the last hearing of the year, i just wanted to say thank you to everybody on this panel for a great year and for all the support that you give the citizens of san francisco and your dedication of showing up here most wednesday nights during the last 52 weeks. and let's do it again next year. may you all have a happy holiday and a happy new year. i echo that thanks to my fellow commissioners. thanks to everybody in the room and those watching at home. happy holidays. okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. anybody on zoom? i don't see anybody. so we will now move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the november 13th, 2024 meeting. vice

president trasvina i move to adopt the minutes of the november 13th, 2024 meeting. okay. is there any public comment on that motion? i don't see any. so on that motion, president lopez, commissioner epler i commissioner swig i okay. so that motion carries 4 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number four. this is jurisdiction request number 20 4-8 subject property at 4,021st street. letter from jason felipe and gabor turkel. the requesters asking that the board take jurisdiction over alteration permit number 20 22 1117 67 to 88, which was issued on march 6th, 2024. the appeal period ended on march 21st, 2024, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on november 7th, 2024. the permit holder is radu roman and the permit description is rear yard. create new decks and walkways less than three feet above existing grade, with new stair connections between existing residents, walkways and existing

yard grade replacement fence and access gate from public way to yard replacement retaining wall and rear yard. relocate door facing yard. excavate 21.1yd!t and we will hear from the requesters first. i believe his agent is here. mr. paul, welcome. do you have three minutes? thank you, mr. rosenberg. president lopez, jeremy paul, on behalf of. 378 collingwood avenue, jason and gabor, thank you for being here. i'm sorry that this is a one case to bring you in, but i'm glad that you were all able to gather one time to wish one another a happy holidays. this request for jurisdiction is based on the inability of this neighbor to know what was being proposed, and reliance on

planning department review of a matter that was approved over the counter, and i think it was approved in error over the counter with the presence of the zoning administrator in the room, i will not presume to school school you on the intricacies of section 136 b 24 b. i'm sure that he will comment on that and explain why or why not. this was properly planned checked, but i want to point out that this permit application is dated 2022 1117. that's the name of this permit application. so it was filed in november of 2022. it was issued over the counter in march of 2024. so it was in play for that long. and is it reasonable that a neighbor could be paying attention to

what's going on with a neighbor's application closely enough so that they would know that this permit had been issued, been able to look at it, see that it had been issued improperly, and request review of that before this board within the appeal period. i just want to go to the actual substance of the case briefly to point out what has been done. if i can go to the overhead, please, overhead, please. thank you. the little pin. i paused your time. so here is the excavation that we're discussing. nowhere in the description of that permit application did it discuss a 12 foot excavation. i'm not certain that the planner who reviewed this at the counter saw this as a 12 foot excavation. the project sponsor did not submit a

copy of the permit. the approved permit drawings, as part of his 275 page brief. so we don't know whether the planner actually saw this survey, which was part of the permit application that shows that the ground level, excuse me, the existing grade is at 330 and that the top of the excavation is at 342. there was a 12 foot excavation here, and this was done with a thank you. that's time. thank you so much. thank you. vice president trasvina has a question. yeah. thank you for your presentation. it was very short because that's what our rules say. three minutes. and i don't think we have begin to scratch the surface as to this case, what

it's about or the rules or what you need to show in order for us to grant jurisdiction. so i want to ask you some questions to help you help us make a decision on the merits and in line with what we were supposed to be about. so. jurisdiction requests section ten a starts after the appeal period has expired. is it your understanding there was an appeal period in this matter? it is my understanding. thank you for the question, mr. vice president. it is my understanding that there is an appeal period. whenever a permit is issued. so yes, there was an appeal period. starting. sometime in march, 18 months after the permit was applied for. so when you when you mentioned the march date, that would be the appeal period. it would have been started on the

date of issuance. right. okay. and then continuing it says the board last board lacks jurisdiction restriction over matter, except in extraordinary cases where the board finds that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal. so i want to make sure you get on the record. what are the facts that you state are that show that the city, either intentionally or inadvertently, caused the requester to be late? thank you for the question, sir. my contention is that there was an error made by planning staff in approving of this at the counter, and if this had been properly reviewed, it would have been subject to a neighborhood review, that neighbors would have been informed that this 12 foot projection was going to be excavated, which undercuts two

adjacent properties. i realize that there's been a lot of excavation already done, and there's been a lot of engineering concerning it, but the question remains did the planning staff properly review this at the counter? and if they did review and approve this at the counter in error, then the neighbors should be entitled to an opportunity to appeal this matter. so am i. am i to understand that your belief of a proper approval would have included neighborhood notification and that wasn't done, and that's why it was an inadvertent. exactly. okay. that should a project like this be approved, it would be necessary for there to be notification of adjacent parcels. so with this case, rise or fall on whether a

notification by the department to the neighbors be required. i would agree with that. thank you. both building and planning building. because when a structural project is approved, there is an automatic notification of adjacent parcels planning where a variance is required, such as this, where an excavation is being done entirely in the rear yard, setback of 12ft. that should have triggered section 136 variance. right? and just one other question. somewhat different topic. we got a record of 289 pages for this case. can you estimate how many of those pages were submitted by you?

three. thank you. okay. thank you. no further questions. you can be seated. we'll now hear from the permit holder, mr. roman, welcome. you have three minutes. give me a few seconds to make sure that i'm. i had a problem with this. can you hear me? yes. okay. let me know when my time begins. good evening. my name is roger roman. i'm the owner of 4,021st street. i, as you already pointed out, the jurisdiction request implies that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal. this is demonstrably not the case, and i will now cover just three simple facts to supplement the hundreds of pages that you already got. first, the

permit was reviewed in-house for 11 months. it's a fact, not over-the-counter, in-house 11 months. all the architectural elements are below three feet of existing grade. the project does not require any variances. second, the permit was issued on march 6th, 2024. this year. that is, 13 days after the permit. this exact permit was discussed on february 22nd, 2024, in front of the planning commission for the conditional use authorization. jeremy paul represented the requesters during this hearing and brought up this exact permit and the variance related grievances. we're talking about an expert that noticed that the permit is not issued, discussed it, and

then failed to file appeals. third, the planning commission motion 21 545 explicitly calls out i quote project will not require any variances or modifications. there is simply no justification for late filing. the requesters publicly demonstrated that they were aware of the permit, including the drawings that were filed as part of the coa proceedings. and failed to file appeals on time. otherwise they could have at least filed timely jurisdiction requests. now, i will give an update on the project execution. we have successfully poured 50% of the retaining wall, with the final section to be finished in the next couple of days. the construction company is doing an amazing job, execution is steady and we're about to finish before the heavy rains. expected this

seconds. as you can imagine, we performed all the engineering observations, special inspections, dbi inspectors sign off on required inspections. moreover, dbi showed up on site unannounced and verified that construction is performed per plans. last but not least, we have just finished on schedule. the settlement monitoring the site is completely secure and everything is done extremely carefully. as we promised last time we met. thank you this time. thank you for listening and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. we do have a question from president lopez. thank you for your comments. just in terms of obviously this this the project is broader than just this permit. you've spoken about the coa process and the hearing to that end, have you

been in contact with some of these adjacent property owners, either in the coa process or otherwise in the project? yes. and as i pointed out in the in my packet, i have demonstrable, provable written encounters with the prior owners of 378 382 unit building across on the north side and the apartment building for 406 408 on the west side, and then for the last 50 days, actually no more than 50 days, 50 days after the appeals were denied, submitted by the same requesters. we've been in constant contact. our legal teams have been in constant, constant contact. the project was delayed for 50 days for unknown reasons, but otherwise we have succeeded in agreeing on performing the survey. we have

we. i have proposed a written agreements that you can find in the exhibits. i have offered to allow my neighbors to perform work on their property as long as it's permitted on my property, so on my property, on their, on their south wall, they refused to they refused to sign the agreement that they asked for and subsequently started unpermitted work on their property two days later. that's just to give you some idea about the length of which i went to offer them support for unrelated items that they need from from me. and i am continue to be open. i want that wall, for example, their wall to be fixed. it's there's a possibility of being an asbestos wall there that needs to be fixed. i'm more than than willing to offer them access to my yard to perform that work. there's also a matter

of encroaching that that they are encroaching on my property. and i haven't made any any attempts to remove those encroachments. these are provable. these are these are written on provable, discoverable facts. and ask me more. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. so you can be seated. we'll now hear from the planning department. julie, just a point of order. i've been pushing my request to speak. button. questions were asked, but my buttons not working. okay, so sorry about that, commissioner. swig. my. my questions have been. oh, it's been answered, so it's not working. you're it's just it's just not working. okay, so maybe just give me a hand signal if you want. next time. thank you. so no further questions. you can be seated. we will now hear from the planning department. all right. good

evening, president lopez. commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator with planning department got limited time. so i'm not going to go also into all the background on the cour et cetera. and the prior appeal. but i do think there's an important distinction between the question for a jurisdiction request and the basis that the appellant seems to think there is a variance required, because i do think there are two different issues. if you look at this permit by itself, it would not trigger neighborhood notice under 311 section planning code section 311. even if it did trigger a variance. and so in terms of whether or not the city, you know, intentionally or inadvertently prevented the neighbor from kind of being aware that there was an appeal, period. i don't think that's the case here regarding whether or not the project requires a variance. again, this permit was has been around for some time at various different stations and review in the city, not just the

planning department. it was actually signed off three different times by the planning department. once in november of 22 over the counter, once in february of 23 over the counter and then at the end in october of 2023, where it had been taken in for one week as a soft intake. so it didn't spend time a long time with the planning department any of those times, and the permit was ultimately issued in march of this year. i did look at the plans before this evening. i don't think the actual building permit plans are in are in the are in the briefs, but there was nothing there that i saw that would trigger a variance. again, the there was some excavation, but the excavation seemed to be in line with the project that had been approved and the conditional use and the features that were being provided were either less than three feet above original grade, or were fencing that are permitted as obstructions within the required rear yard pursuant

to 136. and what i can say is, obviously, anybody can reach out to the department and if they feel like a permit has been issued in error because the planning code has been misapplied, that's kind of a separate from an appeal question. so i'm more than happy to give this permit another look and make a double check, because we did determine that the planning code was misapplied in some way. we would take separate and independent action on that kind of outside of the of the board of appeals. but on the question today as to whether or not, at least from the planning department's perspective, any notice should have been provided to the to any neighbors or the surrounding community as part of this permit. this permit would not have required any any neighborhood notice. and therefore, i don't feel that the planning department took any action, either purposely or inadvertently, to prevent it from being appealed. but i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. we have questions. we don't have any. okay. commissioner quick. thank you. okay, here's what is i was

stumbling over you covered a couple, but i just want to tie them all together. first of all, it is it is correct that the footprint isn't on, the building isn't changing. and that wouldn't trigger a 311 notice. that's the fundamental trigger, correct? well, it's important to remind that actually, earlier this year, the planning code was pretty significantly amended. and it changed a number of things, including triggers for neighborhood notification under section 311. so where this project is located, because the project overall was adding an additional dwelling unit, no section 311 would have been required, kind of regardless of the of the scope. separate from that, because this project was subject to a conditional use authorization, which is a, you know, separate from the potential path. then whenever

the public notice happens as part of the icu hearing for that, instead of doing 311, notice the neighborhood notification is through the conditional use hearing process. okay, it was a claim, a key claim, it seems, from the appellant or the requester. is that well, it happened over the counter boom boom boom. and that was way too. fast. and i, i found that statement in conflict because there was equal amount of discussion, both in the brief and just now by the permit holder, that staff would be at dbi or planning scrutinized this, this permit for months and months and months. so a simple over the counter, if somebody blew it, it happened in a day, a couple minutes, an hour, whatever. but this wasn't so simple over the counter.

correct. and what is what is? give us a discussion about you know, so we have fair context over the when somebody says, well, i got it over the counter. that implies to me they they walked into the department, they went to the counter, they showed the plans, they had the discussion. and, and there was a quick issuance in this case, it was an over the counter, but the issuance was months and months and months and months after the application was made over the counter. so give us some context on so we don't we. sure. we're evaluating the quote over the counter correctly. sure. so the total timeline that a permit may take can be caused by a lot of different things, right? whether it's an over account of the permit or not, an over the counter permit. because even if it's something that can be approved over the counter, you may go to the counter and your permits need to be your plans need to be revised. you may get comments from that station,

whether it's, you know, dbi planning whatever to say. i can't approve this today because it doesn't meet our code. so then you have to go back and revise those plans, and then it's on the applicant to walk it back in, whenever that may be. maybe the next day it could be two months later, you know. so there's a lot of variables that go in into that. and you can have some applications that can be approved over the counter by one station, but can't be approved over the counter by another station. so it can be a little bit of a mix. i can't speak directly to this permit. why? it took exactly how long it took. i think the applicant would probably be able to speak better to that, but to the from the planning department review, it was a scope of work that could be reviewed and approved and approved over the counter because it did not require any additional process or any additional review. it didn't require neighborhood notification, it didn't require any additional, more in-depth review. and when that's the case, those are the types of permits that the planning department can approve over the counter. and there was no variance required. correct. yeah. and the final the final

topic that was heavily weighted in the appeal today was that there wasn't proper communication in the and the and i hope mr. paul i'm not misinterpreting this but that there wasn't proper notification that the neighbor had no idea what the status was of the permit when the permit was going to be issued, and therefore, without that, that notification there was inadvertent, potentially inadvertent abuse by the by the city. yet we heard in testimony that the planning department, sorry, the planning commission heard this, heard this permit in public. there was full discussion in public and they ruled in favor of the permit in public, which to me makes me scratch my head and say, how could there be? how could there be a secret and it

be withheld from neighbors? when the emperor was displaying his his new clothes right there in public, in full hearing? so tell us about where is the where is the conflict there that i'm having trouble with? and so just to be clear, what the planning commission was reviewing was the conditional use authorization. it wasn't like a doctor of this permit specifically. they were looking at the entitlement, but it was basically around the same time that this conditional use, it had two hearings, and its final hearing was very close in date to when this permit was issued. and when you have a conditional use authorization for a project, it's not uncommon that to implement that project, it might require multiple permits because they might have one permit. that's for one component of the project. you might have 1 or 2 other permits that are smaller scopes of work that for various different reasons, you might get separate permits for that. so i can't speak to any direct conversations that were had in public about this specific

permit. but the project itself overall was clearly, you know, in play at that time during the conditional use authorization. and the appellant tonight was obviously engaged in that conditional use authorization process. so with with so much discussion on on a project like this one had it certainly the project certainly wasn't a super secret being hidden under the table project. where where is the burden? where's the burden placed? is the burden. i mean, it was a public hearing. yes. this particular specific permit was not being discussed. it was the icu that was being discussed. and other variables associated with this permit. but it was this permit as part of a bundle. and so where does the where does the burden fall with regard to the city's responsibility to take care of

that neighbor? in informing the neighbor about the permit? is it the neighbor's responsibility to go online and monitor that that permit, especially since it's obviously in play? or is it is it the city's responsibility to phone every neighbor and say, hey, we just issued the permit? and so that's where the inadvertent or purposeful negligence comes in. so i will only speak for the planning department. i'll let my colleague dr. birmingham, if you would address the same issue. so i don't have to. but but i think that's an important distinction, that kind of even if there had not been a larger conditional use project, if this permit was the entire scope of work, of the whole project, there had never been a anything else. you know, the planning department would have reviewed this over the counter and approved it, and there would have been no required notice to, to any neighbors. so. right. that's why it's the position of the department that the planning department did not prevent,

didn't take any action that it should have taken or vice versa, to prevent the property owner from being aware. as you can imagine, we have thousands of permits every, every year that are approved over the counter that our neighbors aren't notified of, that concerned neighbors and interested neighbors have a few different ways if they want to stay on top of a property or project. one is to obviously just monitor the website because all the permit activity is online. you can also request black book notation with the planning department, where specifically for projects like this, if there's a property and you want to be notified of all permits, even the ones that wouldn't trigger a notice, you can you can pay an annual fee to have that applied to that property. so then we will notify you of these projects before we approve them over the counter, even though we're not otherwise required to provide that notice. so your bottom line, yes or no. is this this the department was fully in compliance on the handling of this permit. correct? okay. thank you.

commissioner lopez. so just just to be exhaustive so the requester points to section 136 of the planning code as a source of potential relief. can you speak to your views on that? sure. so the planning code in our residential districts has required requirements for yards and setbacks, etc. planning code section 136 are those obstructions that are permitted within yards and setbacks. and over the streets you think of like bay windows, over the sidewalk, things like that. and those obstructions have limits, right? there's fences that can only be so high. stairs can only be so high. certain decks can only be so large. it provides that information about how what kind of features you can place in these required yards. i don't think the brief specified a specific subsection of 136. i didn't catch the specific subsection that was referenced, but there are very specific features that are called out in

136. and but there's also a general feature for things that are essentially, if you're three feet or less, it's fine. and so there was in the plans, and i think in the brief of the permit holder, there's a conversation about things purposely being no more than three feet above the existing grade. so the distinction there is that you have existing grade and then you can excavate. and so when you excavate you're changing the grade. but you're not getting dinged for that. right. it's based on where you started from. so there's nothing in my review of the plans. and again, i'm happy to review them again tomorrow just to make sure there's nothing missed there. but in my review of the plans, i didn't see anything that violated section 136. that would. because if you do violate section 136, that does require a variance. commissioner eppler thank you. president lopez asked my first question. my second question you kind of refer to

when you say you'd be happy to look at this, this again. is there a process that if someone identifies something that's a planning code violation on an existing permit, that they can, what's the process to have that rereviewed without having to come to us and request for jurisdiction and get you up here to say that you will do that? sure. and this happens all the time, which is i think this happens for both planning and dbi, which is if somehow our departments become aware that a permit was issued in error for some reason, including maybe department error, maybe misapplied the code. sometimes we learn that ourselves. sometimes it comes in through a complaint, etc. but if we if we learn that we have several options one, we can work with the people and say, can you file a revision permit to address this? and then that revision permit will make sure that whatever code requirement that was supposed to happen will happen. another option is we can planning can request to dbi that

they suspend the permit. and so all work would stop and it would be suspended. then while that permit is suspended, the property owner can take the appropriate action, whether it's through permitting or whatever it may be needed to, to correct that issue or in more extreme situations, if a permit was issued in error and there's really not it could not be issued that way. we can request an dbi has the ability to revoke that permit. and then obviously any work would have to be done through a new permit. and if i'm the person that discovers it as the neighbor next door, i can just file a complaint to the department through the online complaint process. yes. okay. thank you. sure. thank you. vice president trasvina. thank you. and as always, thank you for your informative presentations on the procedures of the department and the various aspects that come before us. i want to go back to something i asked mr. paul though. so mr. paul's client had an opportunity or a right to appeal the permit.

correct? correct. and you've explained that the way, the way he would meet the deadline would be to find out on the website or pay money to the city to be notified of everything that goes on. correct. or if there's, you know, there could be other ways for them to be aware of it. but those are the two primary ways that people are aware, but they have a right to appeal. and what does the city do to educate an average neighbor of what their right is? well, obviously, we provide appeal information on our websites. i'm not aware, at least from the planning department's perspective, of any proactive campaigns or literature that we put out to inform or educate people of appeal options other than our

own materials that we provide on our website or through public public situations like this where people can learn. and even if they were before the planning commission on the entire project, that wouldn't necessarily trigger their their being informed of the appeal period for a particular permit. right. well, i think that depends on the situation. i think, as mr. paul mentioned, he's aware of how appeals work, and he knows when the appeal period is, when a permit is issued. and, you know, my understanding, he was, you know, representing the neighbors at that point in time. so i think it's fair to say that if he knew of this permit at that time and knew that it had been issued, he would have been aware that the appeal clock had started. you know, other people, if they're aware of permits, i can't speak to what level of understanding or knowledge they would have in terms of the appeal, opportunities and timelines. but

for the average san franciscan, the city doesn't publicize it other than having the person affirmatively go to the website and read it there. yeah, i'm not aware of any proactive campaign to publicize it or or provide any literature beyond what we have in our departments and in the websites. okay. thank you. sure. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. so we will hear from dbi. good evening, president lopez. members of the board, kevin birmingham representing dbi. i believe corey pretty covered almost all the points extensively. the permit was properly reviewed by dbi once it was cleared by the planning, and it went through 12 stations in 11 months. so there was a lot of time. and to your point, there is a block notification. you know, if anyone wants to call us and ask us the procedure as far

as appealing, we're glad to walk them through it in every way. what else was there? there was, you know, we did when this work started, i did talk to the district inspector and told them, you know, to make sure he was very diligent as to the heights and the elevation and the scope of work. and probably about a month ago i did receive a complaint saying they were over excavating. i talked to the district inspector. he went out unannounced, did review the plans. everything is exactly as per plans. so yeah, i believe the permit was properly reviewed and issued. and i would ask that you dismiss the jurisdictional request and uphold the permit. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time. so you can be seated. thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here in the room who wants to provide public comment? anybody on zoom? i don't see any hands raised. so

commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioners, let's start discussion on that end of the dais with commissioner swig. i did not feel that the evidence presented today justified a rehearing request. this has been a very visible case. it took a long it didn't happen as was discussed over the counter immediately. a lot of vetting went on by both planning and dbi. there was a full hearing on the case, although not specifically on this permit, the project in general, but there were multiple permits, which is not unusual. so i and on top of that, there was no, no responsibility for the for the departments to do neighborhood disclosure anyway. so that the which seemed to be the basis of

the filing. so i don't see any way to support a rehearing request. i agree with the outcome. the, the issue to me is that, you know, regardless of whether public notification was necessary or not, this permit was, you know, went through the standard process where it appeared both in terms of when it was pulled and when it was approved. on the permit tracking website, we found a jurisdiction request when there was a failure to update the permit tracking website at the appropriate time, but have not found it when it has been, you know, noticed appropriately on the on the website itself, the issue of whether or not public notice is necessary or not does not apply. there are lots of permits that are appealable that do not require a permit notice, and we expect folks to keep an eye on the website or or be aware of it when those come along. and, you

know, the other part of this is that there is a remedy. if the claim mistake was made and a variance is required, and it is through the planning department and through the planning code violation or complaint process. and so i do not see the basis whereby the city, you know, advertently or inadvertently caused the failure to file for a timely appeal in this circumstance, is that a motion? i very reluctantly join my colleagues in their conclusion. i, i think there are many problems with this process, one of which is the permit holder submitted a 283 or 286 pages and has a six page limit, and we get all this other stuff and we need to stick to the issues. and there is so much in there. there was something from alex long away. there was so much in

there. it doesn't really help. so we need to follow the process and we have rules. we should follow them. and i respect and i appreciate my colleagues following the jurisdiction request. wordings and requirements. but then i get into the i get into not section four but but on on section ten on the on jurisdiction requests whether the city inadvertently caused the requester to be late. the request the requester the neighbor has a right to appeal. and i think that the current procedures of the city do not protect and adequately protect it. in the same way that i don't believe that the city adequately protects the right to privacy. we have the city says, well, we do it generically. the person

whose privacy is implicated is not at the table. the neighbor in these over-the-counter situations is not at the table or in the room. i don't i'm not persuaded that just because it's gone back and forth between the permit holder and the city for months, that's that's great. but that doesn't mean that the neighbor who has a right to appeal has been protected. the city doesn't provide information to out to members of the public. and these are these are neighbors. these aren't builders. these aren't people who are doing the construction who who we could say, well, as part of as part of remodeling or constructing, you have to do these certain things or you have to hire these certain experts. these are just people whose neighbor has done the has done the work. these neighbors have done absolutely nothing wrong. they haven't taken the initiative, but now they have to take the initiative and get familiar with the city website. and we have plenty of people here in san francisco, people

who have variety of levels of political sophistication, education, familiarity with our laws, language abilities. and i don't think the city does enough to protect people's rights. and in this case, the right to appeal and to do it in a timely fashion, i don't think i don't think the neighbor was adequately protected. so i so and i'm but i'm not saying that that anybody within the department didn't do what they were supposed to do. it's just that the leaders of the departments and of the city haven't adequately protected. so yes, everybody complied with what they were supposed to do. they checked off all the boxes. but at the end of the day, i don't believe a neighbor is adequately protected by these procedures. so i so while the responsibility here is to decide whether the neighbor who has representation, who has been

involved, whether he whether the delay was intentionally or inadvertently caused by by the city, i think based upon what my colleagues have said and what the testimony before us today is, i don't think we can demonstrate that. so i will i will join my colleagues in in denying the jurisdiction request. but in general, i think the city has to do a much better job of educating the public about what their rights are and what's available to them without having to say, well, it was done. it was done. between the permit holder and the city, or people can go to the website, or they can pay money to get a block notification. that clearly excludes certain people and i don't think it's adequate. so i would hope that in the coming year, in the coming administration, that the city is able to look at its its intentions and ability to communicate with members of the

public about these important issues. thanks everyone. i will echo the comments related to following the rules with respect to what's submitted to this body, and we'll take it under advisement. i think that's something for us to handle on the front end as, as these, these, these materials come in to us. and, you know, there is a reason that that the volume is important, even though we had just a single item on the agenda this evening, that's that's not a common occurrence. and so that's, that's something that we definitely want to enforce and improve on, on the merits. i, i join my fellow commissioners. i didn't see the standard met in this case for a jurisdiction request. so with that i will move to deny the request on the basis that the standards for a

jurisdiction request were not met in this case, with the either inadvertent or intentional actions of the city. okay. so on that motion, vice president trasvina i, commissioner epler i commissioner swig. all right. so that motion carries 4 to 0 and the request is denied. that concludes the hearing. thanks, everybody. thank you.

>> my name is lauren. i am the owner and founder of farm branch and we are here at farm branch on [indiscernible] third street, on the corner of third and bryant. we started in 2020, so we are a pandemic baby. all the [indiscernible] expresso selection and [indiscernible] full scale brunch thursday through saturday and catering. we do custom catering and events every day of the week and then we serve all the walk-in as well. we became known for our cookies and our [indiscernible] the chipper is a chocolate chip cookie, but it also has a expresso and these chocolate cripies which adds texture. that was the cookie the food network named one of the most iconic

cookies enthe u.s. which is cool. we take customer service and the overall customer experience so important. we are called the hidden gem every day. people say we didants know you existed. we are proud of what we built and what we are doing and we just are really i think excited for people to find us and see how special we are. >> the height of my addiction i was homeless. i was isolatesed from my family. i had lost everything. my spirit was completely broken. methadone gave me my recovery. it gave me my life back.

the impacted relationships with my family in the most mir aculous way. i'm living proof that trea >> (music). >> my name is - my business name is himself mexican america. >> i started my business a year ago the process was a year ago by business by waving (background noise.) about $1,000 and also guided me there the whole process. (background noise.) that was helpful i was already paying the construction and

other fees for the restaurant the city we put together to honor my city and comes with (unintelligible) on the (background noise.) and. >> (multiple voices.) >> and some go with ebbs and eggs (unintelligible) and a side of roadways and beans. and be able - have my restaurant here in the district of the mission is such an amazing i grew up around the mission area and respect to school around here and so i was able to come in as establish any restaurant here (background noise.) really a feels like

[music] hi, my maim is judy seeber and owner and bier for emily joubert my-my husband and i own the store together and i started 20 years ago. my husband always thought we should open more doors, and we had two middle school age children and were waiting for them to get older. once they left for college we opened more doors andf is was a natural for me because my grand mother raised my mom in the city on california.

emily joubert is my mother's mother and when i original bought the store in woodside it was named in any event and wanted to make it more personal so my inspiration for my whole life has been by grand mother. she was really into fashion and sewing and cooking and all things that make a home and i love the thought my grand mother strolled up and down the street and i feel it is perfect location for the store with her namesake and i want to be a source of inspirational things and something convenient for the neighbors. and the community at large. in the neighborhood i like to think of it as a wonderful place that if you need a gift we have a lot of hostess gifts. if you need table pillows.

we have everything for the home. it is like a mini-general store. i don't know there is a lot of home and garden stores in the area. i know there is dedicated garden stores rchlt what sets me apart i think is just my dedication to doing things that i think my grand mother would love what inspires me and i find in her home if she were alive today and things again, that make a house a home. i take great pride in really discovering and sourcing things that you can't easily find at the store down the street. we want to welcome everyone in the neighborhood and in the city and in the greater bay area to come and discover emily joubert. [music]

>> >> (indiscernible) faces transformed san francisco street and sidewalks. local business communities are more resilient and our neighborhood centers on more vibrant ask lively. sidewalks and parking lanes can be used for outdoor seating, dining, merchandising and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are accessible for all and safe. hello, san francisco. i love it when i can cross the street in our beauty city and not worry whether car can see me and i want me and my grandma to be safe when we do. we all want to be safe. that's why our city is making sure curb areas near street corners are clear of parked cars and any other structures, so that people driving vehicles, people

walking, and people biking can all see each other at the intersection. if cars are parked which are too close to the crosswalk, drivers can't see who is about to cross the street. it's a proven way to prevent traffic crashes. which have way too much crashes and fatalities in our city. these updates to the shared spaces program will help to ensure safety and accessibility for everyone so we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf dot gov slash shared

>> welcome to the 2024 civic center. >> 5. public hearings. is everyone festive today. >> we know boys and girls i love the holiday season has not been that way all the time i needed