Transcripts For SFGTV MTA Board Of Directors 20240713

Okay. President lazarus, did you have something in. President lazarus no. Clerk okay. So we are now going to move onto the permit holders, miss busterud and mr. Videbaek. You have seven minutes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you to everyone, and thank you for your time. We all saw some of these photos, but im going to go ahead and share my screen just to frame the frame the conversation a little bit more . Clerk why dont we start the time when you actually start your presentation. Ill start talking. Clerk no, thats fine. You dont have to start talking. At this point, when you get your presentation up, thats when well start the time. Okay. I rye set your clak. I i reset your clock. So this permit was issued legally and appropriately. We believe that mr. Lynns concerns about the light, privacy, and the noise impacted about the proposed deck are unsubstantiated and do not violate the planning policies. Given the existing structure that the proposed structure would replace, the pergola, there would be no impact to light from the proposed deck. There is no blocking of light from the existing structure, that pergola. This is illustrated visually in the photos in our brief which also include a mock up photo of what the edge of the deck would look like which showcases that theres no impact to light or air. The concern about the proximity of this deck to his property we believe to be overstated. The proposed deck will not give any additional or clear views into mr. Littons property as it is both further away and higher up than our current patio and dining room window. So one of his Major Concerns was that we would have additional views into his building, into his back yard, but actually this deck would have a worse angle of view into their property, so we believe this concern is moot. We actually believe that he agrees with us on this point. On march 8, mr. Litton entered our property with another person without our permission or without notifying us that he was on our property. Our security cameras recorded the two men discussing the deck proposal and mr. Littons friend or colleague who was with him stated that our current patio and dining room already have a direct view into their property, to which mr. Litton agrees. The first and only time that we met mr. Litton in person was during our Neighborhood Outreach meeting which took place on june 25, 2019. During this meeting, he stated his concerns about privacy and light, both of which were noted and included in our discussions with the Planning Department. We offered to discuss potential concessions, like privacy screen are or permanent plants on the deck. We were not contacted by mr. Litton about the deck after this meeting, and he was aware of it for more than seven months without taking any action prior to this appeal. Were we sharing now . Okay. Great. So the screen share now shows the existing pergola, which is outside of our front door and the patio entering into our kitchen and dining room as kind of a frame of reference, and its from this Vantage Point directly behind where the photographer would be standing. Below that is mr. Littons yard. And as you can see, there very much is a structure currently in place there, which mr. Littons peal claappeal cl there isnt. Mr. Littons appeal focused clearly on the application, but we believe our appeal did not violate the planning policies. The architectural drawings and application clearly show the extent of the proposed deck. We were open and honest about our intentions throughout and never misrepresented any information. We followed the procedure, answered the questions of the Planning Department employees and finally had our application approved as nothing violated planning policies. [inaudible] and therefore are not we have a great relationship [inaudible] all of this is in an email and documented in our brief which includes a written confirmation and acceptance of our permit, which says there is nothing they object to. After the appeal was filed by mr. Litton, it is clear he contacted the encinas, and they said they had changed their mind about the deck, which of course they are entitled to do. Weve since engaged with them to talk about it further. We received an email from the encinas, claiming that they do not object to the deck, claiming that they want something more in line with the architecture of our building, which weve agreed to, and we thought it was a nice touch to the building. We would never begin any projects without their consent and again will continue to work with them, but we thought this was relevant to the proceeding and find it frankly offensive that these claims were made up, that we never received written confirmation from them when all of the written evidence in our brief proves that. We believe that this appeal is baseless and that the efforts to falsely procedure tray our Communications History with our up stairs neighbors are equally offensive and inaccurate. We believe this permit was issued by the s. F. Planning department correctly. We believe the board should deny this appeal. Well go into a little bit more detail around some of these yeah. So we just wanted to show you all what were trying to achieve here with this project, and want to highlight the current state here. We have a pergola. Ive been enjoying this almost every day for the last month. Its very nice. What were trying to achieve here in this next picture, this is just a very quick mockup. As you can see, there are no additional light infringement, no additional light or noise or anything. It looks like its part of the building, and so we just wanted to claim that, state that, sorry. As becky mentioned, we received an email from the encinas yesterday, supporting that. We have a great relationship with them and have maintained one since living at this property. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda hey, guys. Thank you. So very concise package you have here, and i think youre going to have some very attractive swas wh attractive space when youre done. Can you just have a statement about how the preplanning meeting went and how it was attended . Yeah. I can address that. So our preplanning meeting was attended by mr. Litton and another neighbor, mr. Snow, and mr. Liskas, and one of his attendants, as well. Mr. Litton had concerns about privacy and light, both of which were included in the permit application. We even offered concessions in terms of putting up a screen, but mr. Litton wanted both privacy and light to come through, which is pretty tough to do, but we tried to work with him, and he did not do anything. Vice president honda okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Clerk thank you. So i dont see any other questions at this point, so we will now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Hi. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. This is a fairly straightforward permit. The subject project at 14 havens is located in an rh3 zoning district. It is my understanding the houses were condominium units and were converted sometime ago. Theres no side yard requirement in this neighborhood. The rear yard here is generally 45 blocked out, however, it can be reduced based on the depth of adjacent neighbors but in no case can be reduced to less than 15 or 25 feet, whichever is less, so theyre showing on their plans of minimum 25 or 15 feet, whichever is less, so theyre showing on their plans of minimum of 15 feet. The depth grade at the floor level does not actually require section 311 notification. While we do have a very robust notification process, not every project is subject to notice. All decks less than 10 feet in height are not subject to notification unless they have some other triggers such as a fire wall because theyre located in close proximity to a side property line, but this project does not appear it has that. This project was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the department over the counter. The preapp was performed. Im not sure exactly why maybe there was a misunderstanding about the preapp process, but actually preapplication is not required for this project. It would have been required if it extended into the rear yard or the deck was more than 10 feet tall. I dont know if the project changed in between the time of the preapp or afterwards, but it appears that the permit holder is shaking his head know, so im assuming that there were no changes, and it may have been an error that it was done. In this case, it was an error that led to more notice and dialogue with the neighbors than was required under our requirements and policies. There was an issue on the permit form and what was stated on the permit form. Certainly, for a twounit building, i think the board of appeals would have the ability to make any needed clerical changes to the permit if that was an issue, and those are primarily theyre under the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection, and they wanted it to be accurate, so perhaps chief building inspector duffy can speak to these issues regarding those, but it would seem relatively minor clerical issues that could be addressed by the board this evening if the department of building inspection feels that that would be appropriate. Finally, issues raised about cc rs, and just to remind the board, as you well know, those are private agreements, and the city does not enforce those agreements, so we would not consider that in our purview. So i think that covers the points that i wanted to raise. Ill leave it at the project is in compliance with the residential Design Guidelines, and im available for any questions. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. Let me see if theres any questions. There doesnt appear to be any at this point, so well move onto the department of building inspection. Mr. Duffy . Let me see if i can locate him. Im here. Clerk okay. Hi, commissioners. Joe duffy, d. B. I. The description on the permit is exterior addition of roof deck over existing first floor. It did go through planning building, issued on the 24 of february and then suspended on the 24 of february. I do tend to agree with the appellant on some of the issues that they brought up on their permit application. Calling this a roof deck, its probably not the proper description. I think it should have just been called a deck. And i wouldnt call the i think the pergola. Thats i wouldnt consider that a roof, but that can be probably exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor. I wouldnt consider it a roof deck as we normally see. It is a straightforward enough project from what ive seen. I do tend to agree, as well, that box number 19 on the permit application, does this alteration [inaudible] i would say that should be f, so thats just items that need to be corrected. The other thing is how about that is a singlefamily residence dwelling unit, when in fact, they did a project there. Th a twounit building seems to be more familiar. Theres a few errors on the permit application that could be corrected by the architect. Other than that, it is a straightforward project, and im available for any questions. Clerk okay. Lets see if we have any questions. Yes, we do. President lazarus and then Vice President honda. President lazarus thank you. Mr. Duffy, given those corrections or given the information that was provided, would there have been any different decision on the permit . Not from a d. B. I. Point of view, no. President lazarus okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Vice president honda . Vice president honda mines similar. So if the board decides to deny the permit, that it was properly issued, will the Department Clean that up or would the or should the board grant the appeal and condition the permit to reflect the work thats to be performed . Either way, but probably condition the permit to correct the errors on the permit application, with the number of dwelling units, 9a on the Building Permit, and then correct it to be just a deck. And then, the other horizontal, to be a deck. So if we were in the field, and we find these errors in the field, we would ask them to do a revision permit just to correct these items, and that would be another option for them. Vice president honda okay. Thank you, Senior Inspector. Clerk okay. Thank you. And let me see if we have anymore questions at this point. I do not see any, so were going to move onto Public Comment. Were on Public Comment for item number 8. This is appeal 20020, and we do have some Public Comment from miss cline. Thank you very much. Good evening, members of the appeal board. My names adrian cline. I am a neighbor of anders and becky, and i have lived and owned this residence for 25 years . I submitted a Public Comment letter to you, which i hope youve had a chance to read . It is provided in the package of materials i saw. I would its always awkward to be in disagreement with your neighbors, but nevertheless, i would like to state my opposition to the proposed project, which is not exclusive a cantilevered deck. It also involves a stairway on the northside of the building, and i would also like to i would address some comments to that. I do concur with the concerns of the appellant in this project will result in increased noise to the neighborhood. Our homes are located very close to each other, and i do have a concern over the fact that windows will be converted to doors and outside space, as one of the commissioners mentioned, while it will be attractive, will increase traffic for neighbors in all four Cardinal Directions in this location. So theres an Apartment Building immediately to the east that has, i believe im not sure of the number of units, but those residents will be affected. The appellants to the north will be affected. My bedrooms are on the northside are west of this building, and the noise, i believe, will come around the side of the building, and also the stairway could have impact light and noise impact as to the rear of my property. Excuse me. So i did take a quick look at your design residential Design Guidelines which do highlight the unique character of the San Francisco neighborhoods and the importance of preserving these characteristics, and your guidelines do extoll the importance of Design Guidelines and material. So to my review, the new deck does appear to have some aesthetic impact on the architecture of the building, which you have copies of images. And haven street, i think is one of those unique oh, dear and its called out in the stairway walk books. So i did not consent to this project. That was stated in the rebuttal to the appeal. I did not oppose it, but that was not equivalent to consent. That was a misstatement, and i believe stating that there wont be impact operator its time. And thats it. Clerk and just a reminder, Public Comment is supposed to be by telephone. I think i mistakenly shared the link with you, but in the future, if someone is here for Public Comment, please call in on the phone number on our website, but thank you, miss cline. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . If you called in for Public Comment, please press starnine, and that will let me know you want to speak. Were going to give it a little time. I do not see any other Public Comment oh, i see okay. We do have a caller. Okay. So the caller whose phone number is let me see. I just lost that person. Can you raise your hand again . Is it 51 can you just raise your hand again, Public Comment on this item . So the caller whose phone number ends in 0094, please go ahead and speak. Are you there . Its 510, area code, phone number ends 0094. Its mute. Hold on. Hello . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Hello . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Clerk we had someone raise their hands calling from the 510 area code. Number ends in 0094. Were ready for you. Can you hear us . I unfortunately, were having some difficulties. Im not sure why we cant hear you. Okay. Let me see if theres any other Public Comment. Any other Public Comment on this matter . 14a haven street appeal . We can try one more i mean, i can try calling that number just to see. Theyve raised their hand twice, so it sounds like they want to get through. One moment. Clerk so okay. Thats up to the permit holder whether or not you can speak or not, but we cant hear you, so can you get through on your computer or for some reason, we couldnt hear you on the phone. Okay. Well, why dont you just stand by, just stay on the line in case they want im going to mute, though. Okay. So that is the architect for the permit holders who wanted to raise a few point. So if the appellants wanted him to speak during rebuttal, i can hold the phone up. Im going to scroll up. I dont see any other Public Comment. We are going to move onto rebuttal. Mr. Litton, you have three minutes. Okay. Just quickly on the comment about me reaching out to them, becky and anders. The last time we met, there was a meeting. I did express my objection, and, in fact, i did not hear anything further. You did not advise me that you were going to change the size of this deck or the deck. By the way, the email that i received from eddie and esvalda said they were opposed to. I received an email at 4 45 today, just before the start of this meeting, saying, in c conclusion, i would prefer not a deck, but i dont know how to object. So my question is, if its not just a matter of correcting te technicalitys on an application, is there any way of objecting to an oversized california deck on an older mediterranean house seems totally inappropriate. I agree with adrians comments, also, and it seems to me some aesthetic and size limitation, just not the idea of the whole deck being rejected, at least limit the size, as the size of the deck is relatively large, compared to the property. So like they implied, they can come to some kind of agreement with the other building owners, i think they should make it a little bit smaller, like a mediterranean balcony, something smaller, i wouldnt object. But 8 by 27 is huge. I think its inappropriate for the building. I think this is a terrible way to submit an application and make it look professional, and thats all i have to say. Clerk did you have some slides you wanted alex to show . I guess youve all seen them. Id be happy to run through them, if you have them. Thats the south part of the building which faces havens lane. The rear of that building has sat about two or 3 feet thats how close their deck thats our bedroom, and below that is the room that im sitting in right now. I look up at their current patio, and needless to see, their deck is going to be almost 10 feet higher. This is where their deck is going to be, where the curlicue part of the building. The window that you see to the right part of the building on the second floor, thats not their property. Their deck is going to be above that pergola but in front of those four windows your time is up. The closest window is somebody elses window. I cant imagine thats legal. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. Litton. Okay. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda so mr. Litton, did you enter their property without their permission . When you say enter, i didnt enter their property, theres a deck sorry, a gate a small gate, and i dont believe i entered their property. Vice president honda so what side of the gate were you on . Their side of the gate or your side of the gate . I have been there many times. I am i w i was friends with previous owners, and ive been there many times. Vice president honda okay. Clerk i have the architect on the phone here. Did you want to give your architect any time . Sure. If we could start and then hand it over. Clerk okay. You have three minutes. Id like to talk about the staircase. We just got that with the Planning Department employees, and the this was added for egress and emergency. Theres no reason why the walkway and door would ever be used unless theres an emergency. Its longer, further away, and out of the way compared to our regular entrance. Next, with regard to mr. Litton, we have a closed gate, and he did go through that, and we have that on camera. I know we havent lived here quite as long as mr. Litton and miss cline, but we love the neighborhood and hope to be here for a long period of time, and well now hand it over to their architect. Clerk okay. Architect geddes . We did want to speak about outreach. We thought it was required for a vertical extension, so we did do that extra step of outreach. When we went for the permit, the planner agreed that actually 311 notice was not required, so its not like our office tried to change anything or, you know, make any modifications to the the process that should have happened . And so, if anything, we did more outreach than what was required and there was a dialogue with the neighbors. As the owner said, we were very willing to make accommodations in terms of privacy and screening, and we tried as much as we could, and thats what i want to state. Thank you. Clerk thank you. You may have a little time left. No, i think were okay. Thank you, guys. Clerk okay. Okay. Thank you. Clerk so well now hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Just a couple of points. First, the proposed deck does not look directly into the adjacent unit. That is the adjacent unit is shown on the plans. Its somewhat unique, and thats the level, that second level is split between the two units. Theres the permit holders unit, which is on the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor, and that second floor is shared with the other unit, and then, they have the top floor, but the deck does not look into those windows, and thats shown very clearly on the plans. Thats set back a few feet, probably 3 feet from the windows of that other unit. You know, the deck does meet our Design Guidelines, its set back fairly substantially from the adjacent property lines. I know the board here has heard quite a few appeals about deck yards and privacy concerns, and some projects that do have the deck right up at the property lines, and in this case, its set back from all lot lines. It is a small lot, and, you know, perhaps for the size of the lot, it is a generous size deck, but it is within reason for a deck in San Francisco as weve seen it, and it does meet our Design Guidelines. So with that, im available for any questions that the board may have. Just confirming, its code compliant, does not need modifications, and im available for questions. Clerk okay. Just i dont see any questions from any of the commissioners, so we will move onto chief building inspector duffy. Do you have anything further . No, nothing further. Im available for any questions. Clerk commissioners, this matter is submitted we do have a question. Vice president honda, do you have a question . Vice president honda i dont have a question. I was just raising my hand for commissioner comments after. Clerk okay. This matters been submitted. President lazarus commissioner honda . Vice president honda thank you, president lazarus. So commissioners, whats before us is whether this permit was properly issued. You know, in remembrance of our late commissioner or our commissioner that moved onto the planning, frank would have had a ball with this, but in this particular case, you know, this is San Francisco. We do live in an urban environment. You know, granted, that the permittees actually had additional process to this matter. My opinion is that we would accept the appeal and condition it on what inspector duffy recommended. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig i was going to say the same thing. Thank you. President lazarus any other comments . Clerk i would like clarification from inspector duffy. He referenced two boxes that Vice President honda 9a and number 9, and to eliminate roof number 19 was to horizontal. Correct, Senior Inspector . Thats correct, yes. Clerk so box 9a should say yes, box 19 should say horizontal . You could check the people that pulled the permit, but its a twounit. I believe its a twounit building, but on the application, they have listed as singlefamily. I believe its a two unit, so it should be corrected to say two units. Clerk geddes, are you still there . Hello . Geddes . I just wanted to clarify, this is a twounit building, that is right. Yes, im still here. Clerk it is a twounit building, correct . Yes, there are two units there. Clerk thank you. And inspector duffy, just to be clear, you wanted it corrected on the permit if that is an exterior deck offver the first floor, not over the roof . Correct, its not a roof deck. Okay. We can make that change. And then, box number 19, julie, its to say yes on that one. Clerk yes on 19 and yes on 9a. 9 to 9a, just from one to two. Clerk okay. Okay. So whos making this motion . Vice president honda that would be my motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit that the foregoing corrections be made on the permit. Clerk okay. We have a motion thats good language. Thats fine. Clerk okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the following changes that they remove the reference to a roof deck. Its an exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor, and box 9 should change from 1 unit to 2 unit, and box 19 would be horizontal, and on the basis that these correct the errors on the permit and permit application, correct . Can i add one other thing . Clerk sure. Box 7 and 7a should not say singlefamily dwelling. Clerk okay. Box 7 and 7a should not say singlefamily dwelling. Yes. Clerk okay. On that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 40. Thank you. Im going to hang up on you now, okay . Okay. Thank you. Okay. Vice president honda before we get started, i think we should congratulate i think we have the acting chief deputy building inspector in our midst right now. Clerk yes, we do. Vice president honda congratulations was it deputy chief inspector so does that mean that were going to lose you here at the board of appeals now that youre the big shot . No, im not the big shot. Im just the acting chief building inspector. Vice president honda congratulations, joe. Clerk congratulations. Yeah, ill keep at the board of appeals. Clerk okay. Excellent. Okay. So we are now moving onto item number 9a and 9b. These are appeal numbers 19135 and 19137, brian raffi and Roxanne Davis versus department of Building Inspections concerning the buildings at 40 and 50 alta street to jerold balzer. Proposed work includes industrial moment frame at ground floor, plywood sheer walls and foundation. The same work is to be performed at 40 alta street under permit 20170909596929, so we will hear from the appellants first. Since we have two appeals, we have 14 minutes. So mr. Raffi and miss davis, who would like to go first . I hope if i got the time right, cheryl takes part of the other. Good evening. Any time . Clerk yes. So do you want to take seven minutes and miss davis take the other seven . Yes, and id like to eat into her time because i know her statement is shorter than mine. Clerk okay. Is that okay with her . I dont know. Clerk miss davis . Miss davis . Miss davis. Im here. Yes, thats fine. Clerk okay. So well give you a warning when seven minutes comes up, and you can decide what you want to do. Yeah, ill give you a sevenminute warning when it comes up. Okay. So good evening. I hope that everyones family and friends are healthy during this time. I know that this is the fourth time that the board has heard this case, and the board is conscious of the time spent on this. Ill just introduce myself. My name is brian raffi. Im a native of San Francisco. [inaudible] until march 15, when lots of employment ended, this march 15, i Trained Medical students at ucsf and also led walking through tours celebrating two of our neighborhoods, San Francisco and north beach. I say this because i love the city, and ive given back to it. 50 alta is only my second adult apartment. I didnt plan on staying, but ive lived here 34 years. It is my home, and id hate to be displaced from it because i cannot afford to remain in San Francisco. I know this hearing is now only about the two remaining permits. The other two permits scheduled for today have been dropped by the appellants. I want to remind the board that our appeals were never ever about appealing everything as is falsely stated by the defendants attorney in our current brief. We are here because we as 40 and 50 alternate we as 40 and 50 alta do not want to be displaced from our homes. The first plans approved ultimately stated there would be no tenants in the building during the construction. We welcome the seismic upgrade. We agree the seismic retrofit is necessary, and its mandated by the city and law, but the board of appeals has the ability to revoke this permit because of the landlords malicious intent and dishonesty. San francisco code 37. 9 states an owner can do Capital Improvements in good faith without intent. Owners and their attorney have argued that the reason they explained our ignorance, they made a mistake in the plans and the filing. Specific examples are on record at prior board hearings regarding this property and their briefs. One example, if this was a simple mistake, there would be no tenant in the building during construction. It should say there would be tenants in the building. Why did they wait until the last minute to withdraw that permit . It caused tons of confusion and we put tons of hours into something essentially moot at that time. If for whatever reason the ownership and management had changed, and they start open and honest communication and do everything they can to keep tenants in their homes without harassment, we welcome that. However, only time will show if these stated changes are lip service. I really thank mr. Balzer and leafi leavitt for getting many of our questions answered. [inaudible] if the sterile work is no longer required, why does the unit need to be vacated . There is no documentation that this is necessary. It is also read that the tenants may be evicted for a seismic retrofit . Why is 50 alta a unique case . Theyve withdrawn permits for other work and just want to proceed with the retrofit. That suggests to today, theyve been misleading the boards and other tenants. [inaudible] they sent a short letter stating they were revoking the stairwell permits but no other information by only mentioning the new intentions for temporary evictions in their brief, there is a stated lack of transparency the last few years. In an email dated may 8 by their attorney, ryan patrick [inaudible] why did their attorney say there were no plans . After us and julie and you pressing, they admitted there were no plans, and we got them late friday, so that communication remains unchanged. Owners and management are delaying the process [inaudible] to change the nature of the discussion. They want to make sure the appellants cannot provide a concise argument and they want to make sure the board of appeals dont have the information they need to make a decision allowing the management and the attorneys to argue at the hearings that the tenants are misinformed and dont have any evidence. The tenants dont have the need to have a law firm on retainer 24 hours to handle submittals. Lastminute changes leave us scrambling. Is this intentaional strategy . The fact that no notice by email or letter about the plans for 50 intentional or unintentional . Does that mean that the april 8 email applies only to 40 alta and not 50 . I mean, should it be the policy for us to constantly chase and correct the owners and managements constant mistakes . Thats seven minutes, if you want to continue. I have about two minutes left. Thank you so much. I can forward you a copy of that email if you want. Our fears have not changed, and the questions we now ask ourselves is did they change their strategy about how to empty the building because we resisted . Have they figured out some other way to get rid of us . They did take a rental unit off and put their office in their illegally . Are they planning to make life unbearable by having the seismic work drag on and on. These are not unreasonable concerns of ours given the past history. All the wonderful talk sounds great in the moment. A dog thats abused by its owner always remains cautious and trusting when the owner gently holds out his hand and talks gently, saying thats okay. Why . Because the dog knows that he was abused previously after the owners words. Mr. Balzer emailed an answer, which is great. We thank him, about the timeline, which would be the same outlined in the first package, but upon a days reflection, is that answer realistic . Has anyone talked to the construction crew about the plans, if they change anything . Does social distance change anything . It would be better to get an actual timeline from the Construction Team to address covid19. Mr. Ryan twisted and misrepresented the intent of working out in good faith some monetary assurance to make sure we would not be displaced permanently. Secondly, mr. Ryan existed the reality of what i said. The lawsuit was unjust and without merit, therefore, the holding of the check was not allowed. In closing, i would like to say again, all of us welcome a real change in the owners intent and actions, but we are skeptical. We trust the boards decision regarding the issuance of these permits with or without restrictions or in whole. I thank you for your time. Clerk thank you. Miss davis . Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Well, first of all, id like to thank the board for your patience and just for your being there to help us. You know, help us refer to the facts that help us make our lives safe and fair. Im grateful that youve given us the opportunity to state our case and to defend our tenants rights. Im also grateful that the owner has decided to cancel the work outside of the mandatory retrofit so that we tenants dont have to be displaced, especially now with the world sheltering at home. In order to keep our discussion relevant, i want to stick to or bring up two concerns just for the record, the transparency and the timing. This is a little bit redundant because the transparency, even though jerold balzer says they will stick to the retrofit work only, his history of keeping us off balance so our arguments with always irrelevant, so they dont have any trick up their sleeve, we want the building to be safe, and we dont want to lose our home. So as for the timing, its concerning because out of the 12 units, two have been under construction, under renovation for two years, and, like, theres no urgency to complete. Its just like theres no end date. Even before the lockdown, these units have been empty and off the market, and whats concerning, without a deadline, the work could go on indefinitely. It should take four to 12 weeks to do the retrofit, and then, is there a way to ensure a completion date for the retrofit within, like, Standard Building requirements so that the job doesnt languish, you know, into infinity . So these are unprecedented times, and im hoping we can come through this healthy and with the necessary rebalancing that needs to occur. Just a little kudos, San Francisco has done a good job of keeping the numbers down. I feel blessed to live in this beautiful city and beautiful neighborhood where ive lived for almost four decades. And its exceptional and welcomed. Im a teacher with the San Francisco school district. This is my sons my son was raised here. Hes not living here at the moment, and we want to do whatever we need to keep our home life focused on fairness and safety, and we thank you again for helping both the city and us tenants. Thank you very much. Clerk okay. Thank you, miss davis. I also want to make an announcement. I see a lot of people who are on this zoom meeting, and if youre here for Public Comment, were only taking Public Comment by phone, so you need to go to our website and call in on that phone number. So i dont know i just see a number of names, and i dont think theyre direct participants, but if youre here for Public Comment, we do have a phone number and an access code that you need to call from our website. Go to sfgov. Org boa, and all the information is there, so thank you. I just want to im giving you time to do that now because were going to hear from the permit holder. Mr. Patrick, you have 14 minutes to respond, and were going to put you on spotlight. Im going to unmute you. One moment maybe were doing it at the same time. Can you hear me now . Clerk yes, i can. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity. Its good to see youre healthy and well, and you guys are doing a great job. Doing a hearing like this presents a lot of logistical difficulties, and, yes, thank you for your efforts to keep the gears turning during this whole crisis. Id just like to clarify whats at issue. Its whether or not the seismic permits for 40 and 50 alta were issued properly. There hasnt been any evidence to suggest that these permits were issued improperly. T what the permit owner is asking that you deny the two appeals and approve the two seismic permits. Theres going to be displacement of the tenants of 50 alta and un one, ain unit o temporary, for 17 days. [inaudible] weve tried to, given the long history of when we first got here, presenting everything we wanted to do to upgrade this building to streamlining it, to say okay, well, because its going to be such a battle and because theres going to be all of these logistical hurdles, how can we stream line this to make it as to take care of these safety issues, and thats what weve done here. If the project has moved and been refined, its because we want to take care of the mandatory seismic, and thats it. And thats where we are here today. I asked jerold balzer here if you want him to answer any questions. I also have our architect to speak to any questions, and im also available to answer any questions. Thank you. Clerk okay. Are you are you finished . Yeah. Clerk okay. Im not seeing any questions from the commissioners yes, i see commissioner swig has a question. Commissioner swig thank you. Let me actually put my unmask myself. Im confused about displacement. Is there going to be in this new set of permits, is there going to be displacement of tenants or not, and if so, how long . Mr. Swig, the displacement is stated in our brief. The work the seismic work will cause the temporary displacement of one tenant, and that is the tenant in unit 1 at 50 alta. Neither of the appellants will be displaced. Commissioner swig okay. And in hearing the appellants testimony, something concerned me, and in previous hearings, weve been through a number of hurdles and things have changed and theres been switches in the past, and its been fairly inconsistent. So i but now you have a hurdle that none of us anticipated, which are new construction rules, and those new construction rules including social distancing. So in your in your plans and in your timing and timeline spreadsheet, what is the difference and is there a difference between what is represented in your brief and a new reality that is associated with social distancing and new construction . Well, were all dealing with the uncertainty of social distancing and emergency orders, and i ideally, the constructions going to have to start after these emergency orders and the social distancing stuff is lifted. Thats the only practical way to deal with this. Commissioner swig okay. So your if this construction is now allowable, and construction is starting, theres no restrictions on you to start this project. But are you representing here that you are going to complete this project when we are no longer under this these new rules or these current rules and stick to that amount of time that you represented . Yes, and, i mean, i think it would be completely unreasonable to go ahead and start a Major Construction project while everybodys sheltering in place. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Commissioner swig okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you. Is there im looking to see if there are anymore questions. I dont see any questions at this point, so we will hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. So the subject property, we have two properties adjacent to one another, 40 and 50 alta street. Both are located in rh3 zoning district. At issue, whats left before the board today are two permits related to seismic improvement. These permits were issued in error because as the plans that are before you, they contain work that were required review by the Planning Department, and that review was not obtained. The permit holder was made aware of that fact after the appeal was filed and has been working diligently with our staff to develop plans for the soft story work that did not require review, and i believe theyve submitted those most recently to the board of appeals on may 8, and those plans have been reviewed by our staff and find that they dont require our review. Its a little bit odd we have to take a look at it to ensure we didnt need to take a look at it, but thats where we are, so it would be the position of the Planning Department that the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans that were submitted last week. They still maintain the required seismic work for both buildings, but theyve been changed in height and scope such that nothing would require our review. The two permits that were initially reviewed at some point originally required our review and could not be changed in a way to not require our review. I think those permits were originally issued in 2017, and stated no occupants in the building, but we informed also the permit holder that those two permits were invalid because they werent reviewed by the Planning Department. I think everyone would have preferred that they would have been cancelled a little bit sooner because we advised them shortly after the appeal was filed, but given with everything thats happening now with covid19 and the citys response, they did ultimately get those permits cancelled, which is what was required. Last summer, they did submit a certificate of appropriateness and Building Permit for each property for another scope of work. Those permits are still on file. The scope of work on each permit for each property is pretty similar. A remodel of entry lobby, the four unit repair of decks and floors, including new access stairs, so that is still under review by our department. Thats not been approved, but i think that may include or they can include some of the work that theyve been proposing in permits that have been cancelled in one permit thats been appropriately reviewed by all city agencies. But whats left before you tonight, it does need to be changed to the revised plans that they submitted last week, and that would address our concerns, and im available for any questions. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Sanchez. Are there any questions for mr. Sanchez . Yes. We have a question from commissioner swig. Commissioner swig got to unmute myself. Sorry. Clerk okay. Commissioner swig just for the benefit of the appellants, what it is really what our discussion has to do with tonight is whether these whether the plans and the permits coincide, and whether you approve of the plans to move forward. The issues of how long the construction lasts is not really our issue, but how do we give, given the the obvious lack of cross which exists between the two parties, how do we advise coexistence during this period, and how do we put at ease the anxiety of the tenants with regard to the displacement at least of one tenant . Excellent question, and i dont know that i have an answer for you. I mean, this is an ongoing issue it has been with communication. I dont know that that can be resolved by the board of appeals here. Maybe things have improved over the years this has been going on. I dont know that that is the case, but certainly i think, you know, highlighting the board highlighting the need for the parties to communicate and to try to resolve things in a cooperative manner to communicate effectively to make clearly known what the timeline is, i think thats going to be important to the parties. I dont know to what extend the board can condition the approval of the soft story permit on communications other than perhaps a statement that the board encourages the communications to continue. And i dont know if your deputy City Attorney has any other advice that may be appropriate or perhaps advice to that, as well. But its a question of communication and transparency. Commissioner swig and given the one very good point amongst many was made by the appellant, which was when they pointed out that that current and previous improvements on the property that should have taken very short periods of time have gone on forever without closure, and and they are concerned that, likewise, a simple soft story retrofit project which should take a specific amount of days in a range will go on for an inordinate period of time. Is there anything that this board can do to add some protection so that a you know, a im just going to pick a number a tenday project doesnt become a 100 day or 200day or twoyear project . Theres nothing in the planning code that i can point you to as a tool. Perhaps Senior Inspector duffy does. I know they have certain guidelines that they have to complete the work, but those can be extended. I think those guidelines in the code are probably longer than anyone would like to see, any way. So maybe your City Attorney has some other advice or comments, or other board members, but i apologize. I dont have a better answer for what the board may be able to do in terms of conditioning this permit. Commissioner swig yeah. My intent is full transparency and also bringing comfort to the appellants, so thats why i ask the question. Clerk thank you. Are there any further questions for mr. Sanchez at this point . I dont see any, so we will now move onto the department of building inspection. Chief inspector duffy . This is joe duffy, d. B. I. Both permits are for the soft story retrofit of the buildings. Theyre under mandatory order, and actually we d. B. I. Has two notices of written violation for failure to comply, so theyre actually under violation, as well. Obviously, with the appeals and stuff like that, we do give them some time. But the permits themselves, from a d. B. I. Point of true, have been properly point of view, have been properly reviewed and issued. Theres a lot of buildings in the city getting the soft story work done. The delay in countering the permits, i can take responsibility for that. Probably blame it on covid, because i think i had an email back on march 13 from the architect, mr. Leavitt, asking us to cancel the permits, and i can take responsibility for that. There was nothing underhanded done by the building owners, because i told them at that time that d. B. I. Was only doing essential we were actually closed for a time, but that was the reason for the delay. It was not their fault, i can assure the tenants of that. As soon as we got a chance to do that, we did. In regards to the the soft story ordinance does allow for the tenant landlord issues to be resolved. The rent board gets involved, and there is language in the ordinance that also protected the tenants. Also allows the landlord and what has to happen on the severance if anyone has to move out for a while while the works done. I want to encourage them to get the work done as quickly as possible for convenience for the tenants that are remaining in the tenants and to get the tenant back. The permits themselves are good for 12 months, and thats the time. We do not have anything in our codes to make them go any quicker. And they also in relation to the health order, they can work under the health order. Theres an appendix in the code b1, which i imagine this would fall under. They could follow all of the guidelines in that if they so wish. Mr. Patrick said probably wait until the health order is lifted. I dont know when thats going to be, but there is an allowance to get the work done if they so wish, and there is an order to follow the protocols. Theres a signin every day. They have to have, you know, sanitizers, masks, so theres about four pages in there. You have to have the signs posted on the building. So theres some new things that they need to take care of if they do, indeed, to start the work if the health order didnt get lifted for a long time. Hopefully that helps a little bit, and im available for any questions. Clerk okay. See if we have any questions for mr. Duffy. And i dont see any questions. I just want to make sure that miss davis is back. She got apparently knocked off the meeting, and shes called in. Miss davis, is there yis you o phone, ending in 3272 . No. Clerk no . Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure that one of the appellants, Roxanne Davis, is back on. Alex, did you hear from her . Shes trying to log in right now. Clerk okay. If anyone is here for Public Comment, were only taking Public Comment by telephone. Im not going to accept Public Comment via zoom. The appellant is going to try to call in. I think her internet went out, so shes going to try calling. Clerk okay. Thank you for your patience. Were just waiting for miss davis to call in. Alec . Yes. Clerk maybe you can call her and just hold the phone up to yeah, i can do that, too. Clerk on speaker . Yeah. Let me give her a call. Hold on. Clerk okay. Okay. I believe, miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone . Oh, sorry. Wrong person. Miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone . I did. Clerk okay. Wonderful. We can hear you. Okay. Were moving onto the Public Comment portion. Are there any callers who called in for Public Comment . Press starnine now, and i know that you want to speak. Were only taking Public Comment by telephone. Press starnine. Okay. I dont see any callers in for Public Comment, so we are going to move onto rebuttal. Mr. Raffi and miss davis, you have six minutes total. How do you want to split that time up . Three minutes each, or okay. Im sorry, mr. Raffi, go ahead. I was just asking roxanne if you want to go first, and there were i dont know if they gave up. There were at least two people that wanted to speak, one tenant and someone else. I dont know if any others officially. Clerk okay. I think somebodys trying to call in. Hold on one moment. Yeah, i think somebody was trying to dial in when we were trying to clerk okay. So let me let me try to text that tenant now. Clerk if you have that phone number, we can try to call them. Who is trying to call in . Are you part of the zoom meeting . Is it teresa . Can you just call in . Okay. Maybe we should just take you via zoom. Its getting late, and lets just do that, okay, because its getting late. Unmuted . Okay great. Clerk okay. So go ahead, you have three minutes. Okay. I am teresa flandrick. Ive actually been working with these tenants since 2018, when they were first asked to take buyouts because there would be some seismic retrofit work done, and we discussed at that time how rarely does anyone have to move other than maybe someone at the ground level. So they started watching the permits, and as has already been stated, the first permit that was of great alarm was the fact that it was stated that there would be no occupants in the building. So i just a lot of this has already been said by the appellants, and i just want to say that i have witnessed them being you know, this has gone over a long period of time, and it has been with delays, it has been with lastminute withdrawals of permits, etc. , which has been very confusing for everyone both i know at the commission as well as for the tenants. So i am really happy that planning will be reviewing things now. That was initially not the case with overthecounter permits . I also want to say that regarding the temporary relocation of the tenants in apartment 1, as weve said earlier in other hearings, there are havevacant units in building, and for mr. Balzer to show good faith, he could, as stated in the rent board ordinance, offer a comparable unit, and certainly one in that building would mitigate a lot of the the impact on these tenants in apartment 1. It would also mean moving without risking the lack of social distance . It would be also an incentive for mr. Balzer to get the work done as quickly as possible so that they could return to their home. So i just want to say that that i hope that, indeed, the owner and management will attend to the work. Its very important to get this work done, as well as attend to the needs of the tenants in no one being displaced for any unnecessary length of time. So thank you. Clerk thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Any other callers . If youre here for Public Comment, press starnine . Okay. So were moving onto rebuttal, and miss davis, i believe youre going to go first. Well give you notice when three minutes is up, and then, if mr. Raffi wants to take the remaining three, he can do so. Okay. Clerk so go ahead, please. Okay. Clerk okay. I just want to say thank you. Ill let brian take over. Its okay. Clerk okay. Mr. Raffi . One moment. Okay. Please go ahead now. Great. I really have no rebuttal. I just want to reiterate, i appreciate your time. And also, the questions from the board concerning our concerns. Honestly, we wish we didnt have to deal with this. None of you take offense, we hope we never see you again in this situation, and that would be a good thing because there would be nothing going wrong. I guess the only questions that i have, and i understand its not that what would be the notice once its a 12month permit, so theyre going to start sometime in the future. What is that notice going to be, and i just want to make sure it comes in a timely manner so we can do everything that has already been outlined in some emails that you and the board were privy to in the last couple days. Thank you for your time. I hope that things work out and that things have changed. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. Raffi. Okay. Let me see if there are any questions at this point. One moment. Okay. So we will now move onto mr. Patrick. You have six minutes for rebuttal. Let me make it im sorry. Unmute you. Okay. Go ahead, mr. Patrick. It sounds like all of us are in agreement that the the seismic work needs to go through. Ive heard both appellants state that. They have not highlighted any reason, legally basis they havent highlighted a legal basis to stop the permits. The permits were properly issued, and they should go forward. Clerk okay. Thank you. I dont see any questions from the commissioners at this point oh, yes. Vice president honda. Vice president honda good evening, counselor. First of all, id like to commend you for working this out with these guys. Its been a long and winding road, of course with the board of appeals. And i agree that even though youre allowed to do work right now, 9 30 to 4 30 with a small crew, and having people sheltering in place would more exacerbate the situation. As the Public Comment says, is your client willing to relocation the tenant to another unit in the building . I mean, i havent talked to my client Vice President honda although you guys are looking good right now, i would like you guys to be good players continually. I would wish that you would contact your client, and if you have vacant units in the building, it would only make sense to relocate that particular displacement in the building. I hear what youre saying, and, you know, were trying to act in good faith. The last thing i want to do before you and before the board of appeals is make a promise that i cant keep. This is not a conversation that ive had with my client, and i dont want to promise to put somebody in a unit thats not done or still being renovated or Something Like that. Vice president honda understood. Its not a threat, but as the guy mentioned before, i would prefer not to see you again because if we do, it probably will not be a friendly gettogether. Thank you, counselor. Clerk okay. Let me see if there are any further questions . There are no questions, so Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez, go ahead. Nothing to add, just that the plan go forward with the plans that the project sponsor submitted last week. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda so not trying to throw a Monkey Wrench in this, but what kind of controls are you going to have over this project, mr. Sanchez, because, you know, they removed the permits that that they overlooked. I know you touched on that, but id just like a little further elaboration. Thank you. So what would be approved if the board does take this action tonight would be the seismic upgrade of the building, which, you know, our whole reason for taking review was to make sure they didnt need our review. They are required soft story seismic upgrades to the building, so that would be the department of Building Inspections purview. They do have separate permits on file for work in the future, and i dont know if thats something they intend on still pursuing, but they have a permit for each building that requires a certificate of appropriateness that we would be reviewing, you know, over the coming months. So then, we would be reviewing it for compliance with the planning code and by the Planning Department. Vice president honda so we would have way to see keep our eyes on . Yes. They could potentially cancel those permits and potentially proceed with only the seismic work, but assuming they do pursue that, there would be permits that would be reviewed and issued and those would be appealable to the board of appeals. Vice president honda okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. I dont see any further oh, president lazarus . President lazarus yes. I just want to clarify with the new plans that have been submitted, if we condition the permit, do we have to approve and condition the permit on the new plans . Yes. Thats the Standard Practice of the board. President lazarus theres kind of a disconnect between the permit and the plans, so i just wanted to make sure they are linked. Thank you. Clerk so there are no further questions, so well go to the department of building inspection, mr. Duffy. Yeah, joe duffy, department of building inspection. There are a lot of good information for frequently asked questions. For tenants that have to move out, this ey have to notify th owners. Theres a lot of information on the d. B. I. Website, and as i said earlier, we are dealing with literally hundreds of projects in the city. As i said, they are going really, really well. With owners there needs to be good outreach, good p. R. By the owners. If theres an issue, it needs to be addressed quickly, and in district 15, the inspection will be done by inspector g. Lancy. If the tenants have any issues during construction, they can contact d. B. I. , and inspector lancey will address that. I think ive covered everything. Clerk thank you. We do have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda so joe, Senior Inspector duffy, so if they decide to reinstate the permits, is there a b. B. N. Or will the tenants be notified in case there is an alteration . A b. B. N. Vice president honda or is that a planning thing, im sorry. A b. B. N. , thats a planning thing. Vice president honda okay. Future permits. D. B. I. Would only do their things on certain types of permits, and then, planning inspection. Vice president honda thank you. I believe mr. Sanchez wants to jump in. I believe theres a b. B. N. On one if not both of the properties, so the b. B. N. Would be triggered by any permit thats subject to Planning Department review. I dont have it available exactly who has the b. B. N. On file other than i can see that theres one at least on i believe on both of the properties. I just cant see who has that. Vice president honda thank you very much. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Do we have another question . I dont see one. Commissioners im sorry. Were not taking anymore comment at this point. Thank you. Just a question about permits clerk okay. Okay. Im sorry. We cant take comment. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioner swig i think that what was suggested to approve the permit with the condition that clerk the revised plans be adopted . Commissioner swig yes, the revised plans be adopted on the basis that those revised plans be properly issued. Is that correct, scott . Yeah, granting the appeal for both cases and adopting plans as submitted last friday by the project sponsor to show that the seismic work did not require review by the Planning Department or does not require review by the Planning Department. Commissioner swig exactly what i said. Thank you. Vice president honda thats exactly what you said, rick. Commissioner swig yeah, exactly. Darryl, do you have any further comment . Vice president honda no. We seem to always be ringing the same bell. Clerk okay. Is that your motion, commissioner swig . Commissioner swig yeah, thats my motion. Darryl, do you want to add anything or supplement it . Vice president honda no, i think this is covering it. Im just hoping we dont see this again, to be honest. Got to have some faith, right . Commissioner swig yep, i guess. Vice president honda have some faith. Clerk okay. So we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require adoptions of plans that were submitted by the project sponsor on may 8, 2020 for the hearing today on the basis that the revised plans do not require approval by the Planning Department and are code compliant. On that motion [roll call] clerk so that motion carries, 50 40, excuse me. And that concludes the hearing. Commissioner swig thank you, julie. Julie, thank you again for your hard work and herding cats and mastering the technology. Thank you, alex. So moved. Second. All in favor . Aye. Aye. Can i have a motion to not disclose anything that was said . So moved. Second. All in favor . Aye. Thank you. Okay, pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Item 7 announcements. Please be advised that a member of the public has three minutes to make pertinent comments on each agenda item unless the portion commissioner has a shorter period on any item. Note that during the Public Comment period, the moderator will dial in participants to use their touchtone phones to register in a desire for Public Comment. And audio prompts will signal to dial in participants when the audio input is enabled for commenting. Please dial in only when the item that you wish to comment on is announced. Item 8, executive directors report. Good afternoon, commissioners. Michael martin, Deputy Director of real estate and development. I have been serving as acting director while Elaine Forbes continues to do important work for the citys covid19 experience starting from tomorrow ill step away for family leave and we will have an acting executive director role. And over to katie. Todays report has two items. First is an update on the citys covid19 response. Significant progress has been made at the seawall lot 344 backlands, trailer r. V. Site that we discussed with you at your last meeting. I want to extend great thanks to all of the hard work put in on the infrastructure which was managed by the maintenance and engineering divisions in collaboration with our city agency partners. Port staff has negotiated final terms of an m. O. U. That incorporates the results of last weeks discussion or two weeks ago discussion. And we expected that document will be executed and residents will take occupancy later this week. And Community Outreach has begonbegunand they will work wif with interested neighbors and members of the port southern water advisory committee. At piers 32, 33, the sfgov site has continued to operate and has walkin appointments, but testing is extremely critical to emerging from the shelterinplace orders successfully and were proud to see the success of that site and the number of tests performed. As of today the port has seen 63 deployments of Disaster Service workers on a range of tasks. And due to repeat deployments this represents 51 staff. That is 20 of the ports workforce that have answered the call to combat the impacts of this crisis. And i am extremely proud of the port engagement and we look forward to answering further calls as we battle the effects of the pandemic. And the second item of my report, i wanted to update the Port Commission on the Farmers Market operated by qoisa. The Food Distribution system is greatly challenged by the crisis but providing opportunities for people to obtain fresh foods but keeping themselves and their immune systems healthy has rarely been as important as it is now. And one response to this challenge, a popup pantry for seawall lot 377 is on todays agenda but the Farmers Market is a longstanding opportunity that many depend on for fresh food. This is a time of transition generally are the appeal to customers included the opportunity to sample merchandise and linger while browsing. As with many retailers its taken type to ax adopt to the protocols. And qoisa is taking their practices very seriously and working with the department of Public Health and the department of food and agriculture to make sure theyre meeting restrictions and are making it easier for San Francisco residents to access fresh food. And they have published and implementing rules for sellers that minimize the contact among the people and the produce and its triple the number of handwashing stations and offers contactless Curbside Pickup for produce boxes. In response to new San Francisco department of Public Health guidance issued last friday, staff have worked with licensing Additional Space to allow operators to spread out further. A strategy that we have been hearing a lot from a number of food purveyors. We have regulatory reviews and negotiations and expect the license to be issued so that the space can be used this saturday, may 16th. Port staff will continue to work with qaisa to have all adapt to new rules over time and so we can avoid outbreaks while avoiding food to residents and businesses to keep farmers afloat. That concludes my report. Thank you. We will open up the phone to comments. indiscernible . Thank you, president brandon. We will open up the queue for anyone on the phone to make Public Comment on the executive directors report. And the conference is in question and answer mode. You will be entered into the system in the order that you dial 1,0, and the system will let you know when your line is open and others will wait on you until your line is open. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Dial 1, 0, if you wish to make Public Comment. Thank you. Do we have anyone on the phone . Ill open up the line now. You have one question remaining. Hello . Hello, caller, are you there . Can you hear me now . I can hear you now. I am sorry, i had my mute button off. And calling on you indiscernible a distributor from fox. And i appreciate the fact that the Farmers Market is so important for the people of San Francisco to get their food from at this point and i know that theres tons of Food Shortages everywhere. And were catching a little bit of fish. Were not really catching a lot yet but i imagine that we will catch over 400,000 fish this year, and that will change in june and july. Id like to talk to you about the processors and the first receivers and the distributors down at pier 45, and it says in my lease that i cant sell to the public. Because im a wholesale fish buyer. And i dont really want to change that because whenever this virus thing is all over, id like it to go back to the way that it always was where i would sell to the distributors and theyd sell to the restaurants and the markets and everything else. And i just service the boats. You know, we take care of the ice machine and wed like buying hundreds of thousands of pounds in a normal year. And to take care of that and let the other guys who do distribution. And i think that its so important what how important you guys think that the Farmers Market is that you consider that proteins that the fish guys are doing at the other end of the dock, and you talk about deferring and deferring isnt going to help us out. Most of us lost, you know, 70 , 80 of our business. I mean, i watched the crab prices go from 4. 50 down to 2. 550 when this thing first started. Im watching a lot of the boats arent going to their buyers and theyre going to the Farmers Markets and stuff, you know, trying to make a living. And i dont blame them. Because the food pipeline is broken. And, you know, you have seen on the news that its broken for the farmers. Well, the distribution is broken for the fishermen too. So if we could get consideration like we got during the crab disaster now, that would really help people to sleep and all of the distributors down on 45 to be kept alive. I appreciate you taking time to listen to me. Thank you so much. I appreciate you calling. Is there anyone else . At this time there are no further members of the public on the phone for Public Comment. Thank you. Seeing no more callers on the phone, Public Comment is now closed. Commissioner gilman . Oh, mike, i wanted to just thank you for the report and the update about the Farmers Market since ive had some inquirys from the public who wanted to make sure that social distancing and wash stations were being put in place. So i want to say i appreciate the update. I also want to thank the member of the public who gave Public Comment and i hope that at some point that the port could explore whether we could do temporary adjustments to leases to allow direct connections to the public as the pandemic continues in a way where the distribution lines are disrupted. That is something that we should take into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner . No comment. Thank you for the report. Thank you. Commissioner . I have no comment. Im glad to hear about the Farmers Market and, of course, i want to commend the port staff again for pitching in so well with the citys crisis right now and i think that we can all be proud of the efforts that were trying to do to help, whether its the homeless or the food or the Farmers Market, but to do our best to alleviate the pain and suffering that this terrible virus has inflicted upon all of us. So thank you. Thank you. Mike, thank you so much for stepping in for elaine and i want to again congratulate you on the new addition to your family. And we definitely look forward to working with you. Thank you for the report. And all of the work that you do for all of our tenants and we have to look at Fish Processing and abatement and other things to help during this crisis. Thank you. Items on the consent calendar, ask for authorization to modify the construction 2810r, and the Hazardous Materials for building 49 and cranes 14 and 30, pier 70, and to extend completion date. Thank you. Can i have a motion . So moved. Second. Thank you. We will open up the phone lines to take Public Comment. Item 9a. Jennifer is your operator and will provide indiscernible for anyone on the phone who would like to provide Public Comment. At this time we opens up the queue for anyone on the phone to make comment on item 9a. Your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, press 1, and then 0. You will be entered into the system in the order that you dial 1, 0. The system will let you know when your line is open and others will wait on you until their line is open. Comments are three minutes per person. The queue is now open. Please dial 1, 0, if you wish to make Public Comment. Thank you, jennifer. Do we have anyone on the phone . At this time we do not have anyone on the phone for Public Comment. Thank you, jennifer. No callers on the phone and Public Comment is closed. Commissioners, all in favor . Aye. Any opposed . Do we need to do a roll call vote. Clerk okay. President brandon . Aye. Commissioner gilman. Aye. Commissioner mackris. Yes. Commissioner wohol. Aye. Thank you. Resolution 2023. The presentation regarding the United States army corps of engineers and the San Francisco flood reresiliencey study, and formerly the storm risk study. And authorization to amend the costsharing agreement with the army corps of engineers San Francisco district dated september 5, 2018, for the San Francisco waterfront Flood Resiliency study. Okay, brad, take it away. Brad, are you on or lyndee . Brad, are you speaking but muted perhaps . indiscernible . Hello . Can you hear me now . Yes. Im so sorry. I wasnt being heard before. Good afternoon president brandon, Vice President adams, commissioners. My name is brad finson, im the ports waterfront resilience director. Im here on behalf of the court staff and Consultant Team that is working on the army corps of engineers Flood Resiliency study. We have a new member of the team, kelly capone is the project manager for the flood study. And she comes to us by way of San Francisco Public Utilities commission. Kelly worked at the port during the 34th americas cup, helping the port to obtain the very complicated permits for that effort. So shes quite familiar with the port. She joins lyndee lowe, the lead planner for the flood study, and matt wickens, the engineering lead. And on the Consultant Team we have summer bundy, who is the task lead. And its a very talented team. Next slide, please. So we acknowledge the impact of covid19 and the new challenges faced daily by San Franciscoians, including the disproportionate impact to some key Waterfront Resilience Program constituencies, including Small Business owners, port tenants and bay residents and families with Young Children as we often see on our zoom meetings. The waterfront is a source of strength for the city. Were very grateful at the staff level for voters having approved proposition a which is the primary Funding Source for the program. And were keenly aware of our fiscal responsibility. I want the commission and the public to know that work has continued unabated on the program during shelterinplace. And we think that resilience planning remains vital to San Franciscos future. This is the draft vision statement for the Resilience Program to create a safe, equitable, sustainable and inspiring waterfront. Next slide, please. The focus of todays presentation is the army corps of engineers flood study. That study is governed by an agreement between the army corps and the port, that the Port Commission approved in 2018. When the agreement was entered, we considered that this would be a typical Army Corps Flood study. The federal rules are to have 3 million in three years with three levels of federal review. Weve learned that this is a very complicated urban waterfront and were studying the entire 7. 5 miles of the port. The port and the army corps staff think that this study will take five years and 20 million, including a 10 million federal contribution to complete. That requires a waiver from the assistant secretary of the army. And it also would require an amendment to the feasability costsharing agreement, and i will return to this later in the presentation. Next slide, please. And the ports resilience efforts are nesting within the citys broader efforts. The commission had a presentation about the hazards and the Climate Resilience plan. That includes a port chapter and that plan is headed to the board of supervisors for approval in the coming weeks. The department of the environment is leading the citys very aggressive Climate Action strategy, and the San Francisco Planning Department has just completed and published a Sea Level Rise vulnerability and consequences analysis, which has been very helpful to this study. Next slide, please. The adaptation for the Waterfront Program is to convey the phased nature of the work over the ports jurisdiction. We refer to it as strengthen, adapt and envision. The strengthen phase is really the focus on how the commission will determine how to spend proposition a bond funds to address life safety projects and improve the citys disaster response. Really focused on seismic risks and flood risk where we can as well. Weve heard from the public that they want to maintain the current waterfront for as long as possible. So staff intend to develop a plan and adapt a plan for the Port Commission review that looks at how the gap occurred in the waterfront for as long as possible, addressing those seismic and flood risk port wide. And we also need to envision what a future waterfront would look like, what a future shoreline would look like that is resilient to water levels that we expect in 2100 and beyond. Next slide, please. Weve been very active with community and stakeholder engagement. We had our last Bayview Committee meeting on january 30th at the southeast facility with a focus on Program Goals for the waterfront. On march 4 at atwater tavern we had a mixer for mission bay and Mission Creek area. That was our last inperson engagement before shelte shelterinplace and so we paused inperson meetings and the team is focusing on Online Engagement through a variety of modes. Its a very creative effort to keep the public informed about whats going on in the Resilience Program and to make sure that were continuing to garner public feedback. Next slide, please. So weve been documenting that feedback from the public. All of the neighborhoods along the waterfront express their love of the waterfront. And its such an iconic structure and people have a deep attachment to San Francisco bay and its marine life. And, obviously, rely on the Public Infrastructure along the port. Weve been checking in about goals to get feedback and the goals and the objectives for the program so that we can bring the principles and goals and objectives to the Port Commission for your review and modification. And were also developing evaluation criteria for seismic and flood Risk Management projects that consider multiple benefits for the public and the environment. With a focus on equity and prioritizing subcontracting opportunities and Workforce Development opportunities in these projects. Next slide, please. The commission regularly requests updates about lebc participation in our contracts and the main contract is the hill engineers planning and engineering contract. And theres an amendment to that contract including the scope to facilitate the army corps study last september. At the time, we had 12 l. B. E. Participation in the contracts, largely due to the Technical Work that was ongoing at the time. Since that time, weve approved approximately 5 million in task authorizations under that contract with 33 l. B. E. Participation business and raising the total to date to approximately 18 l. B. E. Participation. Its a good trend. And we want to continue on that trend line. So that staff can meet the Port Commissions expectations in this area. Next slide, please. To provide a brief overview of the flood study, it really is a partnership between the army corps and the port to analyze current and future flood risk over a 50year period from 2040 to 2090. Were very appreciative of the staff and the experts that the army corps is bringing to us, patrick mckinl