You can attend and provide Public Comment by calling. Enter webinar id, 830. And dwen, sf gov. Tv is broadcast anding streaming the number. To block your number, dial star 9 which is equivalent of raising your hand. You will have three minutes depending on the length of the agenda and public speakers. 30 seconds before your time is up. If any of the participants are attendees need disability accommodation. You can make a request to legal system or send an email to board of appeals. Now the chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Please note that we will take Public Comment from those physically present. Now we will answer in and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may asked to speak. If you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish the board to give weight, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. If youre a participant and not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. I just want to say to my fellow commissioners, thank you for entrusting me for the power of holding a gavel for the first time. To the public and my fellow commissioners for indulge me for the next few minutes. In the two previous meetings, there were some participants in our hearings specifically mr. Jenson as well mr. Stockle and ms. Madeline from the department of recreation and parks. Who explained that i breached the policy by peaking aggressively and some some say rudely to themselves City Employees, for that i apologize to them and im sorry. Both were testifying on behalf of the same department on separate issues. As long one person thought i was rude, i was. And i apologize to those offends in the public and in the department. And no excuses will be made. There is no doubt that testimony triggered some questionable behavior on my part as exhibited by my intense reaction. My passion got the best of me. As my strong reaction was to meant to create a positive outcome of our city as it is. I would like to introduce you to the equity fair and respectful work place policy. Under that policy, my behavior was unacceptable. I would like to point out a couple of things in that policy. It reads as follows. The city of San Francisco, is committed to promoting and maintaining a safe and healthy working environment where every individual is treated with stability, dignity and respect. To promote and sustain a work place were all employees and members of the public are treated with respect and dignity and with they are welcomed and valued. Each City Employee is expected to abide by the values and standards below in this respective policy in this respect policy generally behavioral. To the member to i have made. Those those are follows work honestly and colleaguely and colab ra rately with others. Listen and value the opinions of others, particularly when they differ from your own. Personality. Again, these three bullet points follow with support. Ill continue on my own. There is Great Respect from City Employees and myself and members of this panel, make no mistake. We enjoy the opportunity with to work with most City Departments. And we recognize their hard work on the behalf of San Francisco. If it were not for the popular workers. Mu fellow commissioners, we sit here week after week. We are volunteers although were paid a wage which is a fraction of minimum wage. We are not here for the pay, we are here because we care, we have a job to do, and these are the request of the mayor of the board of supervisors. Our responsibility is to serve the public by ensuring that their appeals and defenses are those and those defenses of their appeals are fully heard while their arguments are evaluated and ruled upon on the basis of law, legislative compliance and other rules. We work honestly, earnestly and colleaguially and collaboratively with each other and we try to do the same with the public and all City Department who testify in front of us. There is a presumption of good faith and trust. This may come with people trying to mistreat themselves when they have broken a law or other compliance issues. When commissioners face these situations, and im speaking on my own behalf, this generally stimulates or triggers feelings of frustration insult, and sometimes even greater irritation. As result commissioners respond, through asking tough questions, which develop information that will lead to a fair and just resolution of any case. If an appellant or permit hold or City Department representatives is viewed as not coming forthcoming comes unprepared to present his case or presents in unbalanced or unequitable fashion its a commissioners job to ensure that these insufficientcies are corrected. This is always with ensuring that information which is necessary evaluate any case fairly is fully developed and becomes transparent to the commissioners in evaluating their final position. The process of getting some participants to be forthcoming transparent and truthful is often a tedious and rough exercise as emotions can flare on both sides of the room. Regardless of emotions and sometimes heated exchanges, even between a pel appellants its important to make sure everybody has had their equitable day in front of this quasi body. Members of the public sometimes challenge the body by some even do not even fully tell an accurate truth, they represent themselves as they need and they only have their consciousness to hold them accountable unless a law is clearly broken at which point theyre held accountable with some punitive measure. Even when we as commissioners are clearly mislead, we listen fairly and an in a balanced fashion, even when we are observing abuse of our system of laws and government. Is often very hard to maintain a de quorum when malfeasance at bay. But the process will result appropriately. City departments in my view are held to a higher standard because they are paid by the citizens of San Francisco to, to quote the a for mention policy, work honestly, henerestly and colleaguially and collaboratively with others. The others in this case, are the citizens and those persons who volunteer to represent them. In this case, others also include the commissioners who sit in front of you today. City departments, should not represent a biased or con tribe for private gain or because its an idea logical or selfserving need for the department or to achieve a purpose. When a department does not complete their full process in a diligent fashion because of an internal agenda or convenient need or sometimes pure neglect, this weakens democracy and trust and further exacerbates, inaoek quality and environmental crisis. Of thus the impact can be significant. Departments with the best intentions may have internal may have an internal agenda which in their minds is the right direction, good for the citizens or a method to find a convenient path to satisfying the naoetd or moving a problem. Dids my belief that may or may not be shared by others. When it seems that questionable testimony may be evidence that it is necessary to scrutinize that information to seek support for that departments representations with fact, metrics substance, according to the rules and laws are compliance. Just like the public, when they are not feeling fairly created in testimonyials sometimes this can be aggravating mainly because the outcome may have important real world implications. Its especially disgruntleling when it seems the testimony may not be forthcoming from the City Department which taxpayer subsidized to p. M. At the highest standard of trust equity and professional and without private gain. Clearly in the last two hearings and during those meetings, it was my view that testimony from departmental representatives may not have been balanceds and fair may not have been transparent and was not necessarily supported by reliable and documented research, metrics and other findings. Whether pressed business elaboration and questions by myself which is the responsibility of every commissioner, it was my experienced that these representatives may not forthcoming with responsible answers to my quarries, that was may be setting to me because that may have abused see city policy by not acquiring to the work base policy. I will not use this as a justification for my resulting for discomforting behavior because it was hurtful but it does serve as an explanation as to why my frustration was triggered so intently by testimony. I exercised poor judgment before the delivery of thoughts and messages that the City Department representatives. Clearly i may have over stepped the balance of equitable fair and work place policy for which again, i apologize to those aforementioned and take full responsibility with remorse and with respect to those offended by that delivery. Again no excuses. I hope those that i offended will accept the apologies for the strong delivery and choice of words. Yet with humility, i respectfully ask that my behavior not act as a distraction that will take focus from the Critical Issues that were prepted in the cases and triggered that behavior in the first place. Commissioners and to the public thank you for your time for allowing me the moment to share my feelings and to express my apologies. Thank you, anybody else have anything to add in the first agenda item . I just want to say personally, i want to thank commissioner swig for his comments. There is a lot here. I particularly appreciate the res tation of bullet its a good reminder for me and i hope others. Im not going to try to respond to it, im going go home and read it and consider it. But one thing that jumps out at me is that, were not that different between the volunteers that become on commissions and the dedicated sitting county of San Francisco employees. We have one boss, thats not the boss in room 200 or across the hall from 200, its the people. And thats something that gets forgotten or side tracked. So i do want to say that if any of that team fails, whether its City Employees, on part of commissioners and staff, then we all fail the people of San Francisco and ill do my part to fulfill my responsibility. I appreciate commissioner swig, i know we have a long agenda so i will not go forward. Further. Thank you. One thank you to everybody all the members of the public who are choosing to spend your wednesday evenings here. I know there are probably other places that you can be tonight but we greatly appreciate your presence and your participation in the public process and on whatever items youre here for tonight. Thank you for being here. And on that note, lets move on. Okay, i just have to check if there is any Public Comment. This is general Public Comment. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on item not on todays agenda . Nobody in the room. So well move on to item number 3. This the adoption of minutes commissioners before adoption are the minutes of february 7, 2024 meeting. And and prior to the meeting, the public speaker that attended via zoom and attended a samsung fm, he thought he should be listed as you know identify caller, so he proposed to amend the minutes that way. I need a motion and then ill call for Public Comment. Or if there is any other corrections . Are there any other corrections. Ill move the motion. We have a motion from commissioner trasvenia. We have a motion from commissioner to adopt the minutes as amended by him on that motion Vice President. Aye. Commissioner. Aye. Commissioner swig. Aye. That motion carries 40. We are now moving to item number 4. The appellant is requesting a rehearing paring of 12068. At that time upon a motion by commissioner swig, the board voted 50 to deny the appeal. The permit holder is margaret and the permit description is revision to Building Application number 200006 had. To correct proposed building height. Remove approved ground level garage and expand retail space. And we will hear from mr. Vand road en first. Welcome, you have three minutes. We will not start the time until youre ready. Okay, can you hear me . Yes. I dont feel that i received a fair hearing because nobody in the board nor representatives really understood the ada laws while there is strong in from the board, they didnt understand the extent of what was presented. Its frustrating to see the gentleman from dbi state the law around title 24. Confusion of what type of business whether retail or residential was on which floor. That was not correct results. Unfortunately, the board does not have or have the legal knowledge to make an informed decision. Experts are available and properly viewed and understand the laws. Under title 24 Disability Access is triggered when they receive the threshold which happens, then its treated as new construction right . So the other thing that was not addressed is the california civil rights law, in california disabled persons act to protect the right of individuals to full use. But if they provide any violation, that was not addressed. Filed sue exception to see get around this. Technical adding any neighbor is adding a fuel fourth floor resident. And invasive process but very common. I had an Structural Engineer to go through the rebuttal to show where the elevator can go. Can you see this. Can you help him zoom out, please. So im not sure what the real issue other than denial or budgetary. Youll see in california, Shopping Center is more than one establishment by the states definition her building would be considered Shopping Center. To have any concern. This goes on and on. 30 seconds. So like, i have photos, and everything from november first photos showing the work starting, the permit was not approved december 4th. The only active permit is to install the sprinkler. Im asking a rehearing to put input. Thank you. Thank you. I dont see, we have commissioner tresvenia has a question. Thank you for your testifying under our rules in order to get a rehearing, you must show new evidence that could have changed the outcome of the appeal or establish that there is manifest injustice. Thats what im showing. Brand new evidence. Okay. And can you describe in a sentence or two, the manifest injustice . Im not sure what the question is. There is two requirement, if youre to be if were to grant a new rehearing, you must show new evidence or establish that there is manifest injustice and i want to give you an opportunity to say clearly. What does that mean exactly manifest injustice. Can you use different words what im suppose to respond to that for that . Im hesitant to go back and forth. Why i think there is injustice. Nobody read my first appeal, im not sure if youre hearing my second appeal. I have new evidence, the civil rights unrule was addressed. All exceptions should be thrown out. Okay. Great. I dont understand why they were not the first time. Sure. Just a question, i acknowledge the new evidence, my interpretation is that sites where elevator can possibly be installed. Yes. Does it also present any evidence as to why an elevator needs to be installed . So again, we need the ada requirement, ill read it again. Civil title 24 state Building Code requires access for more than threestorey buildings. And again, if you have businesses, she has two retail and the first floor is retail and second is retail and fourth is residential. You need vertical access. Except all of those exception thats we discussed in depth in the last hearing and that youre mentioning again. The first technicality visibility is it a joke and should not have been issued. And i have evidence from a Structural Engineer, when you put a fourth one youve got to reopen the whole thing, its not like a little thing. Im requesting that it be reheard so we can talk the right language. Ive done heavy heavy research on this. There are some things that were not addressed. Thank you, okay. Im a little emotional about this. I dont see any further que,z you can be seated. Thank you. So we will now hear from the permit holder. If you can approach the microphone, please. If you can identify yourself for the record. Speaker im architect and ao ive been linsed since 1990, i still have an active license. We have spoken before. Thank you. Speaker thank you, wla i want to read to you and the letters that in response to the appellants remarks. This letter, to the appellants brief for appeal number 23068, dated 2524, if a project faces evaluation, its 200,399 then the entire building must comply with accessibility requirement by as required by the california in San FranciscoBuilding Code unless there is a Financial Hardship or technical accessibility. Level one is fully accessible compliance. There is no debate there. Level 3 retail spaces only one retail space will be located at this level. After the its complete. Office space since these levels are located above sidewalk level vertical access is required. Technical and feasibility was granted after an evaluation of the second floor. So you figure, steal moment frames. Let me show you. You should turn it and just look at it if youre. Towards yourself as youre looking at the document. Okay. If youre reading document. One mower turn. One more turn. We paused your time. See figure one that shows the critical structural members that were install steel moment frames beams. Lets go to page 2 here. You can see how disruptive a new elevator will be. Its impossible to put elevator without the shaft or foundation supports. Figure one shows all the critical structural members whether they are still moment frames shown in blue, figure two shows the completed foundation with massive gray beams and spread foundations of the retaining walls. Thank you, its your time. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I dont see any questions at this time. So you can be seated. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Nothi