Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20171115

Permit. That was work other work unrelated. And the drawings happened to show a garage door on those plans, but we dont have any record of it being created legally. Supervisor tang so you saw permit filed for the garage in 1997, but you dont know if it was actually constructed . We have photographs also in the records. Supervisor tang the packet . Yes, and they do show, they date to the time frame, or soon thereafter. So it would it would seem that that one garage door was constructed after that time. Supervisor tang ok. And just i mean, its a little strange to me, the history of what happened here. I dont know if im allowed to ask mr. Bruno a question, president breed, or if i have to wait until later . President breed for the . Supervisor tang for the appellant . President breed no, you can ask him now. Supervisor tang ok, i have a for the appellant. Supervisor tang just one question. How long have you lived in your current house . Ive lived in nobles alley since 1985 with travels to los angeles and other places, but 1985. Supervisor tang how many different owners have there been . Mr. Yee has owned the property for 50 years with his family. I knew them because they were there when i was living there. He sold the property in 1997. And that supervisor tang im sorry, one speaker at a time. Just so so that everybody knows, people feel strongly supervisor tang just answer the question, how many people have owned i believe there have been four or five owners. We believe this garage was established in 1997, this current owner, we saw email saying she came into ownership of august 2016. Im wondering why at this moment, why all of a sudden, after youve lived there since 1985, you brought forth the original notice of violation . The reason is, nobody was able to use the garages. As roger was talking about the back door and photographs here prove, it was impossible to use the garages. They were built in 1997. There is no proof they were built at separate moments in time. Do you have something on the projector . I apologize. Can you show tv what is on the projector. And can you step back, please, thank you. Thank you, president breed. So basically, the people who built the garage just after the yes sold it, talked to about the permit. What year was this . Fall of 1997 approximately. And they were building them together. They were not built separately, they were built together. Yeah. And when they finished them, i asked them if they had a permit, nothing ever came through, nothing was done. And then it was clear to them, the owners themselves, it was impossible to use the garages. Like all of us in small spaces, we go on with our lives when nothing is bothering us. They were used to storage. Supervisor tang only they were recently used . They were never used by the owners. They approached me, saw i worked in the neighborhood, worked from my house and we discussed it. I told them theyd never been used and they had bicycles there and storage. Thats all. They said we intend to use the garage. I said thats going to change the whole neighborhood. I dont think theyre permitted. I wasnt sure. Supervisor tang thank you. Thanks, ill save my other comments later after we hear from the other party. President breed thank you. So at this time seeing no other names on the roster, we will have a presentation from the project sponsor up to ten minutes. Good afternoon, thank you for your time related to this. Im sorry were taking up so much time. I will try to address the various issues. Im more than welcome to answer any questions. Weve tried to be transparent with the department of dbi and planning to move this forward. I think the issue before you is actually a very, very simple issue. As i understand it, this is an appeal from the categorical exemption of seekwa, it is not a rereview of everything that went on before the board of appeals and Planning Department. There is a lot that has gone on that you are not privy to. I will address the two questions by the supervisors just recently as i go through this, but the log does not support the appellant, the law says if they have done proper analysis and there is substantial evidence that supports them, and there is no new construction or major changed condition, then theyre findings are supposed to be affirmed and thats what the law says. The facts of this case actually support irving that the planning everything that the Planning Department has said and that this is categorically exempt. This hearing is about the categorical exemption, not everything that is hashed out about the history of the building, but im going to address that because there is clearly concern. We purchased this building, believing there were two garages, there were two legitimate garages. There was nothing on the 3r report related to. Right as we purchased the building, there was concern raised by the neighbor, contrary to what you just heard, what he told us was that if we were going to be using the garages, he wanted there to be a single garage door in the center in order to try to not have there be a lot of noise. I am now learning that hes using that against us to try to tell people in the neighborhood we were planning to do new construction. My wife and i purchased this place and didnt want to do anything. We moved from marine county back to the city. Were empty nestors, were trying to scale down, so i could walk to work rather than commute. Were not trying to run a hotel, which is what hes telling people in the neighborhood to get anger against us. It is hard to believe some of the things that weve seen and heard that the appellant is doing. He has a website out there. Hes been blasting emails to people. Giving them scripts to come up and what to say. And weve been dealing with this for a long, long time now. He clearly knows the system. He knows how to operate within the system. He has not only attacked my wife in the street verbally, yelling at her, he has said all kinds of inappropriate things that i find sexist. It is hard to belief some of the stuff were having to deal with here. He has attacked many of the people and criticized the people on the board of appeals, and he was just here attacking peskin. He is someone who is bullying people in the neighborhood. And you actually have a letter that we have tried to submit to someone here that says hes been doing this in the past. I would just urge you to look at what it is that youre tasked here, and to try to follow the law, and what is going on related to the categorical exemption. Now to answer some of your questions, supervisor kim, when we were looking at the file, ultimately trying to figure out what is going on, we saw that there were actual permits that were done for work at the same time the garages were being done, apparently some work had been done and it wasnt permitted properly, so the city came in and said you have to redo all kinds of stuff. So a massive permit was done, the 3r report said there were other permits under the master permit that hadnt been properly closed out. We went to all kinds of different people, dbi, expediters, everything trying to find out what was going on. There is an actual permit for the overall work that has plans showing one garage door. It also says on the documents, it says garages, plural, as if those are part of the overall project. Now, it appears, although everybody has told us, there appear to be records that are missing from the file, so the file does not seem to be quite complete. And what the board of supervisors the board of appeals ultimately did was they said, look, this seems to be kind of jumbled up, there was clearly an intent when they were dealing with the permits to try to correct everything, but for whatever reason, this homeowner who was not architectdesigner, this is a homeowner trying to correct things at the time and get everything permitted. They went through, submitted plans, there is calculations related to engineering for the garage. And i believe both garage doors. So there was an effort by everybody, including the city, and the Planning Department and the dbi, to try to correct everything that was going on and have it done properly. We just heard from the appellant that he understood that the person was also trying to correct it at that time. What do we know . We know at that time the garage door would have been approved, probably both of them, but at least one. That is what the board of appeals was looking at. They were telling us, this probably should be grandfathered in because it was done before and it would have been approved, but at this point, were hamstrung because there is a rule that now exists and there is nothing in the regulations that say how you deal with this. We were send to the board of appeals. The board of appeals looked at this and had the ability to look at everything in the file and go through all of it and they came down with the conclusion that something happened back there that didnt have all of the ts and is dotted, but there was intent at least acknowledged by the city, because they had plans that showed one garage door. So the board of appeals decided that, ok, were going to allow the one that conforms with everything, its nothing, as we just heard, its actually consistent with how its supposed to be. And what i want to actually also just raise, im going to put something here. I think this is really quite important, because there is effort here to say there are zero cars that go in and out of the alley. There is another garage, exactly like the one on our building, that is literally two doors down that faces his front door. And that garage i will show you if i may is the exact same size and construction on the same sidewalk that were dealing with related to our building. Thats directly in front of the door. It does not have a curb cut because it doesnt appear the city required anybody to do it. That directly in front of his door, hes not complaining about it, because its his friend using it for a long time. Now, his friend had a truck that he used to park in there. He hasnt been using the truck lately. Its been used for storage. I believe the friend has now moved out, because he used to run a store right next to it. But thats another garage door. There are constant vehicles going up and down the vehicle, dropping people off, whether uber or not. Its not just us that uses the alley. It is my neighbor who is doing the appeal. He likes to use the alley, too. In fact, something i didnt know that was raised by a neighbor, the neighbor came in and said he likes to park his car there. Illegally. And leave it there for extended periods of time. So there are you will tearier motives going on here that you should realize, this is so he can park his car there, so then, we are not going to be able to go in and out of our garage and use our garage. So there is a complete motive here. I want to show you. When we heard about this from the neighbor, we thought, gee, we didnt know that was his car parking there. Look at the vehicle at the top. Hes going to have to acknowledge its his car. He parked it there in the evening, rather than using the parking in the neighborhood because its impossible to park in the neighborhood. In fact, almost everybody i have spoken to said parking is one of the most difficult things in the neighborhood and they dont want there to be two more vehicles put onto the street. [bell ringing] i want to show you another one. There are multiple pictures of him doing this. Heres another one, where hes parked the car and another car that is trying to come up, but cant because he parked the car in the alley. Heres another one. And it even shows him, going into his car, at this moment. Now, what happened, he saw us take that picture. And what happens after he sees us taking the picture. Why . Because he knew we caught him. The time is concluded. If you just follow the law, the rules. Thank you. Thank you. So, up next is two minutes per speaker in opposition supervisor safai has a question. You want to question. Supervisor kim. Supervisor kim this is to the project sponsor. You made allegations in your argument that the city is missing records in relation to 20 nobles. I dont know. What i was told supervisor kim youre suggesting that the city im suggesting it may not be a complete file. Im not the only one who suggested that. Supervisor kim when you said youre not the only one, who suggested that . There was discussion about what they were going to do, because they saw supervisor kim who is they . At the board of appeals. The board of appeals is implying that records are missing . I dont know what theyre implying. Supervisor kim you stated this, im asking you what you meant by it. Are you saying that the city may be missing records on 20 nobles . What i said was, yes, i dont know, im not saying i know anything for fact, all i know supervisor kim why do you think that may be the case . Well, the reason is because what i think happened is they opened up a whole bunch of separate small permits related to supervisor kim who is they . Whoever the original homeowners. Supervisor kim the original Property Owners. In 1997. They opened up a series of original permits that were part of the bigger project. The only thing i know, this is on the report, they then opened up the master permit, the master permit was closed as part of the process, they were looking at the garages. They had permits and plans in that are in the city file that show one garage door, and there is calculations related to the changes that were needed to do for the garage and those are all in the file. And then there are other permits that say garages on it, but its not a specific permit for the garage. So it appears as if there was some confusion going on back there, related to how they were trying to get all this together. And we know the one master permit was closed out. So when we purchased the property supervisor kim isnt it possible the Property Owner didnt file permits for the garage . Im not saying thats not possible. Supervisor kim but youre suggesting that its possible that, um, permits were pulled for the garage and the city doesnt have a record of it . Well, i dont know that is the case. I know there were permits pulled for the overall work that discussed the garages. Supervisor kim but no explicit request to permit a garage in that . I apologize. Supervisor kim no, thank you, you answered my question, i appreciate it. Thank you very much. Is there any other questions. I have one question. Supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer i have one question, so this is your permanent address, 20 nobles . Yes. Is this where youre registered to vote. I have registered to vote. I permanently reside there and the issue of three times we rented it, we had no idea what was going on. He had filed a complaint. We didnt know that prevented anything. We went to see our daughter who is trying to be a competitive skier, we were away way for the weekend, were tight on cash, why not rent it out for the weekend. Were trying to support her. She wasnt sponsored, so we were the sponsors, the parents. And we tried to get a little bit of money. We did it three times. As soon as we were told there was an issue because of what is going on here, which we had no idea that was an issue, we immediately stopped. We havent done anything since. We are permanent residents there. I walk 15 minutes to work. This is the whole reason we moved to the location. Supervisor fewer you dont have intention of creating a shortterm rental . Absolutely not, 100 . Supervisor fewer do you have residence in i do not, i am hoping my daughter in college in canada will come back and live in the home and if i can do that as a parent, i want to do it. I dont know if ill be able to. Supervisor fewer and you dont intend to do shortterm rental at 20 nobles . Absolutely not. We have two other tenants there we have a great relationship. Are you allowing shortterm rentals of your tenants . No. President breed i just want to be clear its not against the law to apply and go through the process to actually have a shortterm rental for anybody, so i just want to put that out there. Any way, let me open it up to those who want to speak in opposition of the appeal, members of the public who want to speak in opposition of the appeal, please come forward, you have two minutes. Hi, im his brother. And our family has lived in the north beach area for probably over 100 years. I lived there with my grandfather, a board of supervisor like you guys from 1958 to 1961. Our family is a big part of the north beach area. My mother still lives on greenwich street, i lived with my grandfather and was so excited when my brother was able to move, because hes going to be just a few blocks from my mother. And she is failing in health unfortunately. I want to speak against this notion of the people who spoke ahead that my brother is a foreigner, developer, going to do this shortterm rental. Its totally, absolutely false. There is absolutely no merit to it. I was standing behind this group of people as i walked in to city hall today, and i saw mr. Bruno saying, dont worry, i have a script for you. And it really hurt me. It personally hurt me he would sit there and try to besmirch my family and say were foreigners, coming in for a bad notion or bad idea to do this, when its completely and utterly false. And as my brother showed you, its his own selfinterest to keep his private park space. I hope you see through this charade. And you do what is right here and follow the law, thank you very much. President breed thank you. Next speaker, please. If there are any other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal, please line up to your right. Good afternoon. Excuse me, good evening. My name is rick sa vary, i live in north beach. I was born in San Francisco, my dad 92yearold dad was born in San Francisco. My mom grew up here and passed away a few years ago. I want to iterate what was said here, was that the family has lived here for almost 100 years. His mom lives up the street from me and has been failing ill. I know for a fact that one of the reasons of moving back in was to take care of her in the north beach area. Im on the board of the boys an girls club in north beach. I attend st. Peters and paul, where i was baptized. My father was baptized there. My son. I find it odd theyre challenging this is some flybynight family. These are people who live here. Ive known him since he went to school in university of San Francisco, where he lived with his grandfather, the judge, who was failing in health. I find it odd that were talking about parking. I think its no doubt when you talk about parking in north beach, its extremely difficult and that people, all you do with the construction, theyre inserting garages. Here, they want people to take away garages and put cars on the street. Thats the antithesis of what is going on there. There is a beautiful victorian, a nice couple bought it. Theyre going to excavate into the hillside and put in garage space. Im a proponent of keeping the cars in the garages and off the street. I support we keep the garages in 20 nobles. Thank you. President breed thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is kerry, i grew up in the bay area. I live in San Francisco, ive lived on broadway for ten years. I work with him. I know for a fact that he does live there fulltime and intends to stay there, he and his wife. I take the 41 bus to work and i often see him walking to work. I know that he walks home every day, i sometimes walk with him, get on the bus, have dinner with them and bump into them when im out in north beach. I invited them to go out and i know they do live there and im surprised im here to talk about that, because i know how happy they were to move there. Excited to walk to work every day. So thank you. President breed thank you. Next speaker, please. And if there are any other members who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal, please line up to the right. Good afternoon, my name is tom brigham. My parents and grandparents were born in San Francisco. I love this town. I would like to say specifically that the else allegations that the theyre not fulltime residents is patently untrue. I have actually worked on grant street, about a block from 20 nobles alley, so i see them all the time, walking up and down the street. Dudley has been walking the dog, and shes given me pointers about restaurants to go in the neighborhood and places to park. I see cars going up and down knoll nobles alley with frequency. Parking in north beach is extremely difficult. I have to do it on a daily basis. I think it is genuinely a good thing to have more garage parking and free up spaces on the street and say again that the allegation that theyre running some type of hotel or absentee landlords is ludicrous, thank you. President breed thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. We will have up to three minutes for rebuttal from the appellant. Or appellant representative. Thank you very much, president breed. I want to there are so many things they accused me of, i cant comment on them in three minutes, not even 30 minutes. I want to point out that the two garages were built at the same time. And interestingly, you have in your own record, its black and white, in fact its a record presented to the board of appeals by the current Property Owners. It shows you who owned the property when. Mr. Lombardo, a very large Architectural Firm owned the property in 1997, buying it from mr. Yee here, can you stand up . Ok. And they bought it for one price and doubled what they sold it for, less than seven months later, the same year, 1997, because they put in two illegal garages. Illegally. All they did was exploit the property. Not these people. Not anybody in this room. Not me. But its a matter of record. Thats who did this and to claim there are hidden records and they meant to put in permits or as he claims, that there are there was just a mistake because he says they probably werent architects, these are people who were developers. Mr. Lombardo and his wife came and bought a piece of property, exploited it and most interesting to us as a city, by doing what they did, putting in the two garages, what we no longer have, if you give me the overhead, please. What we no longer have is a historic resource, because until they put in the garages illegally, it looked like thats what they did in 97. This is what it looked like prior to that. As mr. Yee, the owner at the time, who sold the property in 97, it still looked like that 40 years later when they owned it. It looked like a dinky little historical thing, but people came in and cheated the system, didnt notify the neighborhood and i profoundly disagree with the Planning Department these garages would have been approved had it only not been for some mistake. We in the neighborhood, you can see some of the people who testified, lived there then. I lived there then. The letters you receive are from people who lived there then. Does it sound like its a neighborhood that says, put the garages in. Had the process worked in 1997, these garages wouldnt be here. We wouldnt be here today. And finally, they talk about balking to work, but walking to work, but where is that work, owned by richard from the ethics complaint weve filed. You cant appear in front of the board of appeals when one of the people voting on your appeal has a business relationship with you. His law firm has given him 6 million in the time that theyve president breed thank you. So this hearing has been held and his now closed. [gavel] supervisor kim. Supervisor kim well, based on the final comments i have a few more questions for the City Attorney. The project sponsor mentioned the allegations of missing records. I just want to know if there is a history where the city loses records from that period of time. Im just i just want to understand where all of this is coming from. Department of building inspection are actually the keepers of all of the Building Permit records. So anything that we were able to find is what is held in their archives and the permit discussed, which shows the one garage door. Im not sure if it was in your packet, but i have a copy if you wanted to see it. But to answer your question directly, we requested any information that we could find and there was nothing that we could find that, in the scope of work and associated plan set, legalized the insertion of a garage. Supervisor kim in your experience in the Planning Department, have you seen the city lose records . Not in my personal experience. Supervisor kim concern were not the keeper of the records. Supervisor kim i wanted to take that allegation seriously with questions about it. So i can completely understand the statement made a few times. There was reference to one garage door and another permit that was filed with the dbi and that permit was approved . That quote, unquote, the master permit . Im not sure what permit theyre referring to when they discuss the master permit. Supervisor kim ok, so the one referenced, the one car sorry, one garage door youre referring to, where is that reference . In dbi records . I have a copy of it here, if you wanted to see it. It is permit from 1998 and the scope of work for that permit was to remove 100year brick wall on the interior of the ground floor. On the drawings that are associated with the permit, it shows one garage door as existing condition. Supervisor kim i see. I see. Ok, but an approval of the permit doesnt legalize any garage doors . Is that correct . Can you repeat the question . Supervisor kim a drawing of another garage door and another permit for request approved does not approve this garage . Thats correct. Supervisor kim my question is to the City Attorney. Im not exactly aware of the rules under which individuals can sit on a decision before them on the board of appeals under the statement made that if there is a business relationship, that an individual must recuse himself, is that the case for the board of appeals . Deputy City Attorney, jon givner, i can speak generally to the rule. I saw the appellant filing, but im not familiar with the facts of that commissioners financial interests. The rules that apply to the board of appeals are the same rules that apply to the board of supervisors. So it prohibits you from participating in decision that you have a financial interest, thats why under the political reform act we said he must recuse himself from this vote today. The local law provides that even if you dont have a conflict of interest in some cases, you must disclose a relationship you have with someone, financial, professional, business or personal relationship, that would cause members of the public to have a reasonable concern about your objectivity in the matter. That is a rule that applies to all city commissioners. And city employees. Who are making decisions. Supervisor kim i know youre not familiar with the facts of the case, i apologize for asking this, did commissioner swig publicly announce he had a business relationship with the project sponsor wherein he was receiving rent for the Business Office . So not directly benefitting from the approval of the project itse itself, of course, but separately had a business relationship with the project sponsor . I dont know whether any disclosure was made, i dont know about the nature of the relationship either. I should note as you all know, the board of appeals ultimate decision isnt before the board of supervisors. Supervisor kim i understand that. I understand why youre asking. Supervisor kim i think its relevant, this is not to ask you more questions, mr. Givner, it is relevant in the sense that what is before us is the determination of the appropriateness of the categorical exemption, i understand that. But its the categorical exemption of proposed project that was that was pushed forward by the board of appeals, right . So if there is a question about the decision of the board of appeals, then rather than making a decision on this on the determination before us, the motion that im going to make is to continue this until there is resolution around the board of appeals decision in and of itself. And after we determine that decision is a one that can move forward, after the ethics investigation is concluded, then i think the board should decide if the categorical is appropriate. Thats not a question. Just in terms of the ethics investigation and potential consequences. Generally, if, i understand from the public filing, the appellant is alleging that a commissioner did not make a disclosure that would have been required under local law. Even if the Ethics Commission determines a disclosure should have been made, that would result in a financial penalty for the commissioner, but the commission does not have the right to reverse the board of appeals decision, even if it finds that disclosure should have been made. On the merits, any the parties to the board of appeals appeal could file a lawsuit on the merits. And i dont know whether that has happened or what the time frame for that would be. Supervisor kim no, no, i appreciate the clarification. So the mitigation for, if there is a termination determine nation that a disclosure was not made, the outcome is a fine, its not a reversal of the actual decision, the decision would stand, unless there is litigation by the appellants on in the courts. Thats right. And one other note on this, there are variety of different outcomes from Ethics Commission investigations. If the Ethics Commission settle was a respondent in one of the enforcement actions, that is public. If they move toward a public accusation on the merits, that is a public process, but some matters are resolve before a public announcement, because the Commission Decides to dismiss a complaint that was filed and that does not result in a public announcement. Ethics continues to keep that confidentialal. President breed just for clarity, mr. Givner, i understand the comments in supervisor kim regarding her concern about the conflict, but that from my perspective, based on your comments has nothing to do with the decision before us here today and there doesnt appear to be a need to continue this item because we would base it on the merits of the case, correct . I just want clarity around that, because thats what i heard you say. Whether to continue to gather more information about about the circumstances is really a call for the board. The ultimately the boards determination on this appeal has to be based on whether the determination that theyre that a categorical exemption is appropriate was correct. President breed so why would it matter what the board of appeals decided to do . To us . I think thats a discussion for the supervisors. President breed i just wanted to i thought i heard you Say Something of that nature. Supervisor tang. Supervisor tang thank you, i think you, president breed, tried to address what i was going to say. What is before us is the categorical exemption determination and whether we agree with that or not, the history is relevant only in the sense i wanted to know, for example, what was dually legal actually legally permitted way back then and knowing that the s dutch was formed in 2010 and apparently in the blue print plans for one garage, not the second, but for one garage, now the homeowners are asked to restore their property to have just one garage. That to me is why the history is relevant. So i think that the Planning Department based on what has transpired issued a correct class one exemption which a applies to existing facilities for interior, exterior alterations or additions under 10,000 square feet. I dont believe that my decision would be impacted by the board of appeals and what happened there. I think as deputy City Attorney mentioned, it will be resolved in its own way. I would make a motion to send forth items 30 and 32 and table item 31. President breed could you repeat that . Supervisor tang i would like to make a motion to approve item 30 and 32 for the preparation of findings and then table item 31. Supervisor tang just 30, im sorry. President breed if youre affirming the Planning Department determination, you would make a motion to just approve 30, and table 31 and 32. Supervisor kim thats correct, sorry. President breed seconded by supervisor farrell and supervisor kim, you made a motion to continue prior to supervisor tangs motion and is there a second for the mowing to continue . Seconded by supervisor ronen. Supervisor kim . Supervisor kim i was going to speak on the actual decision before us today. I understand what is before us is an affirmation of the categorical exemption determination of a proposed project that was approved by the board of appeals, but while the decision made by the board of appeals is under investigation, i dont feel comfortable making any approvals or any determination of the or anything else. What im going to request of the board is that we continue this item for three months, while that investigation goes forward and we can make a determination on the exemption of the decision by the board of appeals. President breed we will take the continuance and then supervisor tangs motion. Supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item three months you said . Supervisor kim yes. President breed to the meeting of february 6, 2018. It was seconded by supervisor ronen on the item, call the roll. Supervisor yee . Aye. Breed no. Farrell no. Fewer yes. Kim aye. Ronen aye. Safai no. Sheehy no. Tang no. There are four ayes and five nos, with supervisors breed, farrell, safai, sheehy and tang in dissent. President breed the motion to continue fails and on the motion to approve item 30 and table item 31 and 32, madame clerk, please call the roll. Yee aye. Breed aye. Farrell aye. Fewer no. Kim no. Ronen no . Ronen no. Safai aye. Sheehy aye. Tang aye. There are six ayes and three nos with supervisors fewer, kim and ronen in the dissent. Confirmed. Lets go to the next 3 00 p. M. Special order. Item 33 through 36. Hearing of persons interested in the certification of the conditional use authorization for a proposed project located at 2161 through 2165 everything street to establish a medical cannabis dispensary and a 65 a. Madame president , due to a filing of a second appeal on this matter, todays hearing, filed by Flo Kimmerling for the mid sunset association, its to be continued to a future date so it can be heard with a newly filed appeal. Im asking that items 3336 be continued to a new date, december 5th at 4 30 where both appeals will be scheduled and heard together . President breed is there a motion to continue this, moved by tang, seconded by farrell. Seeing no payments on the roster, there are there any members of the public who want to comment. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Clerk on the continuance, call the role. Yee aye. Breed aye. Farrell aye. Fewer aye. Kim aye. Peskin aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Sheehy aye. Tang aye. There are 10 ayes. President breed those items will be continued to the meeting of december 5, 2017. At 4 30 p. M. Lets go to roll call for introductions. Supervisor yee is first to introduce new business. Supervisor yee i just want to have one in memory this is a person who lifts everybodys spirits, she is a resident of my district and very known in the community. She was the wife of my dentist. And so over many, many years ive seen her at the front desk for probably over 30something years, since my kids actually started with them when they were almost infants. And so sad to see her pass away. Even when she was battling her cancer, you can never tell when you actually were talking to her, because shes always smiling and very peppy and its something that ill definitely miss when i go into that office. She survived by her husband dr. He and her three daughters, who range from high school to college. Supervisor kim . Supervisor kim thank you. I just want to add my words, janet ye was someone ive known for a number of years, ive been going to her husbands office for dental services and i wanted to add my words of condolences to the family, both he and three children and the entire family and community of friends. It is an incredibly tragic loss. Janet as supervisor yee said was one of the most positive and energetic people i knew. And she really was a fighter. She had been struggling with Breast Cancer for many years. And she had fought back against the cancer several times and unfortunately, this last fight took her. And so i just wanted to send my condolences and my thoughts prayers with the he family. President breed president breed. Thank you, madame president , supervisor cohen. Absence excused. Supervisor farrell . I would like to say happy birthday to my 12yearold daughter madison today. I had the ability to say happy birthday to my father yesterday and i want to say happy birthday to our daughter. Its hard to imagine 12 years, i look forward to seeing her for dinner. Happy birthday. President breed happy birthday to her. Supervisor fewer today, Herbert Patrick lee, i would like to adjourn the meeting today with supervisor peskin, supervisor kim and supervisor yee in memory of my uncle, Herbert Patrick lee, the first chineseamerican Police Officer in San Francisco. He was born in 1932 at home in San Francisco chinatown. Growing up in chinatown, they survived the only way they knew how, tight quarters. He attended st. Marys school, where he caught the singing bug and performed in stage productions. He met his wife at age 15. Walked her home, fell in love and were married. He and dorothy moved back to San Francisco with the first born penny early 1955. A classmate asked him to take the test for the San Francisco Police Academy with him. He didnt think about it until he passed the test and his classmate didnt. Little did he know that would be the second best decision, other than marrying dorothy, that he made in his life. By 1958, he and dorothy had their second child, another in 1959 and john followed in 1961. Since it was never publicized they had a graduate at the academy, the Police Department pulled him from the Training Program early and put him in undercover work. This is unusual because its normal for them to go to patrol duty and climb the ranks. In 1964, he was transferred to headquarters in the narcotics. Many of whom are here today, either retired or serving as law enforcement, one of them being commander lazar. In 1975, he formed the Northern California peace operation, known as the Peace Officers Association to provide a voice to asian americans. He served as the first president from 1975 to 1976. There are close to 200 members. Even in retirement, he served adds cochairman of the parade and spent most of his time sharing recordings. The history books have been written and herbs legacy will continue on. Only one can imagine what the next 30 years will bring the stories to be told and life of devoted father, grandfather and soon to be great grandfather. My great uncle was a bigger than life personality. He hosted many fishing flips and family gatherings. He was gregarious and generous and exciting. I remember once as a child i was perhaps maybe 8 years old, i was standing in front of his house and there was commotion going on down the black, he looked at am eand said, sandy, go to get my gun. It was so exciting and thrilling. Nothing really happened, but i remember that vividly as a child and i hope that didnt lead me to being married to a Police Officer for 35 years. He loved to sing and he always loved to joke and tease people. He laughed loud and often. And i belief he is smiling now. I feel fortunate to have him in high life, our lee clan will not be the same without him. Colleagues introduced hearing on the president breed supervisor, id like to join in on behalf of the entire board of supervisors if thats ok with you, without objection. And also supervisor yee would like to make comments. Supervisor yee supervisor fewer, really did a good job in describing herb. I met him as a kid. And didnt know immediately he was a policeman. First of all, i never saw asian policemen and one day, my family had a grocery store, and i believe herb and my uncle were partners in a butcher shop on a corner across the street. We go back and forth, and one day i saw this cop. And i said, wow, he looks asian and turns around, i said, oh, thats herb. I always remember him as a role model in the community. And he was one that introduced me or tried to get me to become a cop also. By joining the police cadet program. And unfortunately, i didnt qualify because my vision was 2060, they said youre blind, but i have very fond memories of your uncle. President breed i thought it was because you had a record, supervisor yee. Supervisor peskin to supervisor fewer, sorry for the loss of your uncle. If it were not for your uncle, there would not have been a chief fred lao, a chief heather fong. He paved the way. We would not have culturally Competent Police in many areas of the city where today, they patrol an are part of the community and that is herbs legacy. I met him on a number of occasions. He was a completely how should i say it chill kind of guy who totally got it. He was a lot of fun and i have a lot more things i could say. I also want to say that i do believe that supervisor fewer was a police cadet and i believe that may have come from her uncle. Supervisor fewer thats right, i was a police cadet for the San Francisco Police Department and met my husband on the first day of the job. President breed and you didnt become a Police Officer because you, too, also had a record, correct . Supervisor fewer actually i did pass the test and i was supposed to be sworn in on a monday morning and at 4 30 on a friday afternoon, i waived it. And im glad i did. I still believe i have the floor. President breed actually supervisor fewer has the floor, because its her town on roll call. Do you mind yielding the floor . My stitch went rebecca, whose grandmother was the first chiendzamerican to vote has fond memories of growing up with herb and neighbors on clay street in choointown. Supervisor fewer thank you, colleagues, today, introduce a hearing on the proposed federal tax plans introduced in congress that would have tremendous impact on not only millions of americans, but on the city and county of San Francisco. In the past few weeks, the finance committee released versions of tax plan based on the white house version introduced in september. The proposed tax plans include massive reductions to the Corporate Tax rate and elimination of the state tax and elimination of deductions for Student Loan Debt and they undermine Affordable Housing through tax credits. Anything like that was currently proposed in congress could be disastrous for the city and county of San Francisco. The rest i submit. President breed supervisor kim. Supervisor kim thank you, colleagues, today im giving substitute legislation on the