Not disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permit holders and Department Respondents are given 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with the parties must include the comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. Members of public who are not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no eare buttal. Time may be limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a large number of speakers. The rehearing requests the parties are given three minutes each with no eare buttal. Our legal assistant will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Four votes are required to grant an appeal, modify a permit or other city determination or grant a rehearing request. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, email board staff at board of appeals at sfgov. Org. Public participation is very important to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the inperson hearing process. To enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. To watch the hearing, go to sgfov tv cable channel 78 and it will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of the website at sfgov. Org boa. And Public Comment can be provided in two ways. You can join this zoom meeting by computer. Please go to the website at sfgov. Org boa and click on the zoom link. Or call in by telephone and call 8884754499. Enter the webinar i. D. 8 933 0628687. And sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the toll free number across the bottom of the screen. To block the phone number dial star 67 and then the phone number. Listen for the Public Comment portion to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak and you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. Please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and d for the second budget year. Given the anticipated savings or replacement and the sheriff has not identified funding for 50 of the total development and implementation costs, without additional funding the project is at risk of delayed the simultaneous licenses in the new jail Management System 550,000 in total. We did also note the replacement has been recommended by the jail work group. Would support the sharing strategy in 8020 regarding closure of county jail 4. Allow integration with their system. We also note the replacement is necessary savings of 140,000 per year once fully operational. Chair fewer, and supervisors, the bottom line with our recommendation is that if you allow this to go through it would allow the upgrade to continue. We are not saying that we disagree that upgrade is needed but then you and the mayor basically the city is going to be on the hook for 1. 4 million. We would have to come up with 1. 4 million in the second budget year to keep this going. That is why we wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you. I think we all appreciate this is a good thing in that advocates photo have the data aligned. The sheriff is in agreement. What i am hearing from you is that it is a concern about the fully funding of the program at 1. 4 million in the second year where there is no current funding strategy for that. I will say myself and if my colleagues speak, this is something after the jail advocates have come to me and said this is extremely importa important. The bla, too, i understand the concerns. This is a really important project. We have made 1. 4 million short on this. I am going to depend on colleagues who will be here in the next fil fiscal year to find funding. I am open to comments. Supervisor mandelman, do you have a comment . I am nodding with everything you say. I agree. How about supervisor yee. That is logical. I support what you just said. Thank you very much. Supervisor walton. We have a consensus, madam chair. Thank you very much. I want to thank the bla for the work on this and thank you, sheriff and the advocates who pushed for this. Our consensus can the controller please note that it is the committees intention to not accept the recommendation on the policy matter recommendation. Mr. Clerk, any other committees before us today . We do not, madam chair. That is very good news. Colleagues, we recess this meeting. We will be back on wednesday. We will have a discussion with the chief. I would like to recess the meeting now. Thank you, sheriff for joining us. I would like to recess until monday amount 10 00 a. M. Where we will have a full day and possibly full night of Public Comment. Colleagues get a lot of sleep. There are a lot of people to tell us what they are thinking and feeling. Thank you, mr. Clerk, we will see everybody at the meeting. A motion to recess. Yes. Second. Thank you very much. Roll call vote, please. To recess the meeting until the august 24th meeting of the budget and appropriations meeting. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor yee. Aye. Chair fewer. Aye. We have four ayes. Thank you, colleagues. 2020 remote meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. President ann lazarus will be the presiding officer tonight. She is joined by Vice President darryl honda, commissioner rick swig, commissioner santacana and also is our board attorney. And at controls is the legal assistant Katie Sullivan and i am julie rosenberg, the boards executive director. Our Legal Process clerk is also present. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. Scott sanchez, joseph duffy, and chris buck. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permit holders and Department Respondents are given 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with the parties must include the comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. Members of public who are not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no eare buttal. Time may be limited to 2 minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a large number of speakers. The rehearing requests the parties are given three minutes each with no eare buttal. Our legal assistant will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before the time is up. Four votes are required to grant an appeal, modify a permit or other city determination or grant a rehearing request. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, email board staff at board of appeals at sfgov. Org. Public participation is very important to the board and every effort has been made to replicate the inperson hearing process. To enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. To watch the hearing, go to sgfov tv cable channel 78 and it will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of the website at sfgov. Org boa. And Public Comment can be provided in two ways. You can join this zoom meeting by computer. Please go to the website at sfgov. Org boa and click on the zoom link. Or call in by telephone and call 8884754499. Enter the webinar i. D. 8 933 0628687. And sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the toll free number across the bottom of the screen. To block the phone number dial star 67 and then the phone number. Listen for the Public Comment portion to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak and you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. Please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on the see the tvs or computers, otherwise there are interference with the meeting. If any attendees need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, make a request in the chat function to Katie Sullivan or send an email to board of appeals at sfgov. Org. The chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give evidentiary weight, rise your right hand and sway say i do after you have been swear or affirmed. Do you swear the testimony you give the the truth t whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. If you are a participant and not speaking, please put the zoom speaker on mute. We are now moving on to item number one, which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . Please raise your hand. I see one hand raised. I am going to ms. Samantha king. And move her to the video portion. So if we can spotlight Samantha King please. She is participant. Sorry, i accidentally clicked that. I did not mean to do that. Okay. Please go ahead im sorry, did you want to speak . I am speaking on behalf of another matter. Okay. Thank you. Well move on to item number two which is commissioner comments and questions. Sorry, go ahead, commissioner. Commissioner i would just like to anticipate the nomination of most of the woman who is near and dear to most of us on this panel, and hopefully in the audience Kamala Harris on her nomination to be Vice President of the United States of america and i wish her well as i know we all do. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments and questions . Yes, even though there was some banter about it beforehand, i would like to offer congratulations to commissioners swig, santacana and commissioner honda on the reappointment and look forward to serving with them for as long as my tenure lasts. Welcome back. I would like to second that. That admonition and just great to keep working with you, gentlemen, and look forward to continuing to serve the city of San Francisco together. Awe clerk thank you. Is there any Public Comment on that item . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any Public Comment so we will move on to item number 3 which is the adoption of the minutes. Commissioner, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the august 12, 2020 meeting. Motion to approve please. Sorry, i should have raised my hand. I might suggest that in the section reflecting the Public Comment from that meeting, whether there was a question raised about accessibility of the minutes, our executive director did respond and i thought perhaps there should be some reference to the response. I can do that. That was item number three. And motion with that change please. I will amend the minutes. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes as amended by president lazarus. On that motion i cant hear you that well, just so you know. I heard you say aye, but for the future. And president lazarus julie, hate to interrupt, but did you call for Public Comment on that one before you take the vote . No, i did not. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Thank you. On that motion. [roll call vote on approval of minutes from meeting] the minutes are adopted 50. We are moving on to item 4, a rehearing for appeal 20038 and let me make sure that the requester is here. Yes, i am. Awe thank you. This subject property at 727 ottumwa street, Matthew Diamond is requesting a rehearing which was decided on july 1, 2020. At that time upon motion by commissioner tanner, the board voted 401. And commissioner santcanna option to deny the appeal and uphold the variance decision and adopt the findings that the rear yard variances meets the five findings under the planning code and denial of the open space and exposure variances was proper because findings 25 were not met. And the proposal is to construct a twostory, vertical addition, rear deck, and staircase. And to excavate the basement to create a full story height floor. And add five dwelling units to the existing twostory four unit residential building, three new units will be in the new third and fourth floors and two new units to be constructed within the basement, a portion of the proposed vertical addition and the rear decks are located within the required rear yard and therefore need a variance. No open space is provided for the two units proposed at the basement level and an openspace variance is required. The proposed units of the basement level face onto the noncomplying rear yard and exposure variance is required. The Zoning Administrator granted the rear yard variance and denied the open space and august 12 upon the motion by Vice President honda and voted 401, commissioner santacana absent, to continue the rehearing to august 19 on the basis that the requester could not access the meeting because of internet problems. I want to ask commissioner santacana as a preliminary matter, did you have an opportunity to review the videoened a materials for the hearing on july 1 . I actually have not had an opportunity to do that, so i will not be participating in this vote. Okay. So we will not have you vote, but we will hear from the requester mr. Diamond. You have three minutes please. Before i start, i want to queue up a slide show if that is all right. Before you start, im sorry . Can you see my screen . It is actually quite small. Can you enlarge it . You want to maximize the screen. I was thinking i was going to get it. If you hit the center thing, it will enlarge the screen or you can go into i think you can maximize it. Go into presentation mode. Done. Good . It is the same. Im sorry. It is not a long presentation. Im sorry. How is that, better . Yes. All right. I will start the slide show. Okay. I am request a rehearing today based on the information provided at the two hears. The first injustice is that while the d. A. And i were ample time to make the case t board provided d. A. 20 additional minutes to provide his case. Mr. Diamond, you are coming in and out. Can we restart the time and speak to the microphone please. An i think i am right in front of the microphone. If you can enlarge the document. Do you have a headset . [inaudible] i understand that you could hear me last time, right . There is kind of an echo. Is that better . That is a little bit difficult. It is difficult to understand. Okay. I think if you step back from the mic, it might work better. How is that . Much better. Okay. All right. I will stay back 2 feet. Okay. Starting over. I am request a rehearing today based on injustices on false information provided at the two hears. The first injustice is while the d. A. And i were both in attendance and given time to make the case, the board provided the d. A. An additional 20minute during a onesided question and answer period and asked the d. A. Over a dozen questions without asking me a single one and i was not given additional time to comment on. And that is misleading and inaccurate and should have been challenged. It was clear none of the word members had read the brief prior to hearing and they would have answered the questions they asked at the hearing and known many of the answers provided by the d. A. Were misleading or inaccurateened a formed their own opinions instead of relying solely on the d. A. s t misleading answers. The planning code requirement. However, the variance process is intended to allow leeway in the planning code for private parcels. Our property faces 5 such hardships. Therefore, denying the appeal is unreasonable given that we worked on the variance decision. In regard to misleading and inaccurate information provided at the hearing, first, the d. A. Reportedly referred to unit density in the argument in the proposal. This argument is without merit as mentioned repeatedly in the brief and by the d. A. Himself and our Zoning District has no dwelling unit density limit. Therefore, dwelling unit density should not have been a factor in the matter of appeal. Furthermore, the building number three at Howard Street was misdated by the d. A. And resulted in a misleading 143 square foot difference in unit density in the property and the actual difference was 10 square feet. It shows that we are on par for density within our district and with the build. Second, the d. A. Shows a planning code requirement that Clear Windows be built from the entirety of the floor which is untrue. There is no planning code session with this requirement. Furthermore, the housing code section allows clear story windows allows skylights to be utilized by the exposure department. Third, the d. A. With the considerable rear yard and would have town 25 feet by 25 feet and advance 5 feet. This is inaccurate and this is on an inner court. We are proposing an outer court and they have no such requirement. 30 second remain. And misleading and inaccurate information left unchallenged at the hearing and by no means all of them. Information relative to the questions was included in the original brief as the Board Members read the brief, they could have challenged the inaccurate information and i would not commit that. And this more than demonstrates manifest injustice and more equitable and judicious rehearing before the appeal board. Thank you. Thats time. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Depa