that's reflected on the permit, the permit is reflecting four existing levels of occupancy, legal levels. >> then it would have the permit application would have to be changed. >> it would need a revision permit. that would -- i disagree with mr. hammond there respectfully. i think dbi would be looking at the sprinkler require many going from three to four, but it's entirely possible it's an existing -- that's -- we can deal with it on a continuance or approve the -- >> it makes sense for both -- if they have the ability to negotiate, that's fine. but for us, the question of whatever is required, if it needs to be revision, they're smarter to have us incorporate that revision into the permit set instead of having to go wait for another period of time ha that it takes. >> and it's appealable. >> you're saying a continuance. >> i think it makes more sense

for all parties. >> and are you, again, the appellant, talked about access to that area in her house, access to that area in a twin house on one side and then we just heard that, you know, there are stairs up to that -- formal stairs up to that area in the demolition. wouldn't there be a permit on file. >> not from 1900. >> no. no. if there was, it wouldn't be a broad assumption -- unreasonable assumption. if there was the assumption those houses were, in fact, triplets and that the project sponsor's house had a change

sometime, would there not be a permit on file for that change or on your site visit, could you tell there might have been an augmentation without a permit. >> that's a good question. we have ways of -- we can order the microfilament and we can look at it. we can work with the permit holder to figure it out. it's an amendment to the permit. it needs to be made if that's the case. and maybe the sprinkler requirement may kick in. the gentleman referenced an information sheet. i don't have that with me tonight. it wasn't really part of the brief. but if -- i would like to do more research with the plans department and records department and make sure what they're putting down is what they're doing. there's no problem with having the four levels, but if it's going from three to four, we want that reflected. we want to do what needs to be -- >> it could be true, but a 1900 area feet, each one of these

full foot prints are 800 to 1200. if it's 1900 square feet, how do you get two it. the property profile won't change from 1900 on this permit if it's being reflected as existing and no change, which could be wrong. so we want to get it right. >> i agree. >> that recognition of 2300 square feet versus what it's listed at might trigger and then recognition of what is the true configuration may trigger at that point automatically the sprinkler issue. okay. so then we need to move this -- allow you some time to figure this all out. >> this isn't at proved set in the brief. this was not the dbi approved set. there could be a note on there from us about sprinklers that i can't see. >> okay. >> and i think that the owner was saying they were going to do it, but mr. hammond said they weren't. it could be something on the

approved plans addressing that. >> if we move to move this to a later date, then we also would ask that the -- a clear, current and proper set of plans as submitted to dbi would be submitted in conjunction. >> yeah. i think continue it. >> how much time do you need. >> a couple weeks. >> i think that's the going rate right now. >> two weeks or four weeks. >> two weeks is plenty for me. >> if it's two weeks, if you're submitting anything it has to be done by next thursday. >> okay. >> if he's submitting something in writing. is he going to submit something in writing. >> or you want to give an oral analysis. >> i prefer to do an oral analysis. i can work with the department holder on this all the time. >> does march 7th work for you? [ off microphone ] >> okay.

>> all right. move to continue the item until march 7th to allow dbi to confirm the number of stories of the building. >> okay. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this matter to march 7th, 2018 to allow time for dbi to confirm the number of stories in the subject property, president fung. [ roll call ] >> that motion passes. this matter is continued. >> no further business, president. >> good night.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today.

- we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> thank you. >> here we go. >> secretary: good morning. today is wednesday, february 21st, 2018. this is a meeting of the

abatement appeals board. the first item on the agenda is roll call. vice president gilman? commissioner mccarthy, commissioner warshell and commissioner clinch is excused. next item is the out. all parties giving testimony please stand and raise your right hand. anyone who is planning to speak should stand. do you severe weather the testimony you're about the give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. how much time would you guys like? normally they have seven minutes. but this is a continued case.

do you still want to do that? >> commissioner gilman: we'll do seven minutes. >> secretary: the department will present itself case first and then the appellant. each side has seven minutes to present their case. there is public comment and each member of the public has three minutes to speak and rebuttal time of three minutes each for the department and the apel land. the next aye -- appellant. the next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes from meets held on december 20, 2017. is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. any public comment? seeing none. awe commissioners in favor? [all aye] >> the minutes are approved. case number 6836, 221, 11th

street. department would like to come forward? >> public: good morning, all. i name is maurice hernandez, building inspector. we got complaint about work done without a permit. commercial space being divided for living space, stove, washer and dryer installed. the inspection complaint officer visited the site. he issued a notification for work without permit for the

commercial residential on the third floor. legal use is b. it was converted to residential without a certificate of occupancy. there was a sleeping area, the mezzanine was used for that. new partitions were constructed. washer, dryer installed. the case was issued a notice on january 24, 2017. the case was seconded and referred to code enforcement. january 31st it was referred. on february 1st it was received by code enforcement and a hearing was set up april 10th. there was a director here on the 28th. it went to an order of abatement on july 24th.

at this point we haven't had any permits from anybody so the case is still ongoing. so, we would like to uphold all the all the abatement procedures. any questions? >> thank you so much, inspect hernandez. >> secretary: the appellant would like to come forward? >> good morning commissioners. my name is francisco. i'm the attorney for the appellant, don ramon's real estate, llc. the managing member is also present. i was here back in november. if we'd like to go over the case again, we can. as far as the violations and conditions of the building, the owner's position as far as who did the work. however i would like to give the commissioners an update.

we had a long discussion of what this board would like to see at the building. on behalf of the owner, iefb working -- i have been interviewing professionals to assist us. the challenging use for us is the conditional use authorization that this board has requested. i have interviewed attorneys. i don't handle land use issues. i have interviewed attorneys and other professionals in the area and we just found someone who can take on the project and assist us with that aspect obtaining the conditional use authorization and working with the planning department. as far as the matter of this hearing and the appeal, because we have found someone to work with, i would ask that this board give us another 60 days to get the permits on file for the conditional use authorization and also in connection with that, the permits to abate the

housing code violations within the building. and those have to do with installation of industrialize kitchen range and also a washer and dryer. we can get thing moving much quicker. i wish i already had that in place here as i showed up. but i'm confident that we can get this rolling within the next 30 days. so, if we can move this hearing over to april, i think by then as the city pulls the permit history for the building, you will see that there's progress on this. i understand that the board is concerned with upholding the laws and the orders

>> planning to see you. would that prevent this action if we kept the order of abatement? >> i don't think so, no. >> do you know? >> no, it would not. >> just a matter of -- >> so, you could still proceed. we could uphold our order of abatement. you could still proceed with your council. it would not prohibit the action. >> right. i understand it can be independent. my understanding from coming here the last time is that the board wanted to see that happen

in connection with this appeal. my concern is that if the order of abatement is upheld, it's recorded against title and there are penalties that are assessed. we are trying to hold that up. because the underlike issue is a land -- underlying issue is a tenant/land lord dispute. there was an issue once all the permits were retained. the tenant moved in and we are dealing with both a legal issue, landlord/tenant issue and we are asking for the city's cooperation and understanding and giving us some more time to resolve at least the component that's at issue in this appeal, which is the order of abatement.

so, i understand that we can follow the conditional use authorization process. but we would like to just have some more time to come back here and ask this board to uphold the appeal and withdraw the order of abatement and penalties. >> commissioner warshell. >> commissioner warshell: i understand you're trying to do the process to do the corrections and, you know, clearly life safety issues are one of our biggest concerns in this case. but as i recall the discussion last time, the tenant has strong interests in staying and is the ultimate goal here for you to work with the tenant to get all the things resolved so that they can remain in this -- we also have had a major discussion that we're conflicted because we aggressively would like to see

organizations maintained in the city. so, we were sympathetic in that sense while understanding our responsibilities for life safety and proper permitting before work's done. so, is your intention still to work with this tenant to resolve the differences so they can go forward as your tenant in corrected conditions? >> well, commissioner warshell, the goal and the intent is to work with them to resolve the code violations within the unit as far as the washer and dryer and stove. but our position, which i expressed here the last time and it hasn't changed, is that because of the underlying land lord/tenant dispute, there is no trust. as far as the tenant, they have a lease. but the owner's intention is not to renew the lease at the

expiration. >> commissioner warshell: thank you. >> i would like to hear public comment. >> okay. there are no more questions. >> secretary: is there any public comment on this case? >> public: i'm lisa. i represent the tenants at the subject property. this is the first i've heard of the landlord planning on doing some kind of conditional use permit. we actually have had a person who came and spoke last time, jeremy paul, who is a permit expediter and expert in that area who did try and get conditional use permits. but the landlord rejected them after -- they pulled them -- their signature after agreeing to it. so, i'm not really sure what's

going on in that aspect. you know, i vice president heard anything from the -- i haven't heard anything from the land lord or attorney since this last hearing, despite being told i would be hearing from them and trying to resolve something. just from the tenant's perspective, they have a lease that has an option to renew and i can say they are concerned about where they're going to be six months from now. i think that if the landlord is serious about getting that conditional use permit, then they might actually want to try and collaborate with the tenants who have been working on that issue for years, have put money into it, have an expert on hand to help them with the process. so, in terms of removing the order of abatement while the landlord allegedly attempts to procure the necessary permits from the tenant's perspective

seems unnecessary. i suspect they will go on doing nothing as they have so far. it's been two months and they haven't gotten the permits. so, on behalf of the tenants i would ask that the order of abatement stand until the landlord actually takes the necessary action to legalize the unit for residential use, which they have been renting it out for, for several years, even prior to my client's occupancy. they keep refer back to the washer, dryer and stove. yes the tenants changed stove because the old one wasn't working right. but they moved in and there was a full sized operable stove in the unit at the time. and it was noted in the advertising for the unit, was having a full kitchen with a stove. and so far as i know accord to the fire department -- according to the fire department, there is

no life safety hazards in the unit at this time. [bell [bell]. >> i'm sorry. your time is up. you can take a seat. >> i wanted to see if you had any questions. >> we normally don't ask questions at public comment. but thank you. we will call you back up if we do. >> secretary: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, does the department have rebuttal? >> public: hello again. we understand there's a civil dispute going on, but the fact is there's more than a year this has gone on. and even if they actually come up to us and say we have gone to planning and they showed us proof they work with planning in the middle, even before we send

the case to code enforcement, it would be something we could help them with and say okay, we will give you more time to take care of this. but we don't have power over a civil dispute. it's kind of difficult for us to say yeah, we're going to hold this case. we understand the fire says there's no life safety concerns. if a hood is not vented and somebody installed a gas stove and we don't know who installed it, whether it was a plumbing contractor, licensed contractor, there's some issues going on. we still have a case here. we don't want to have an issue with a fire occurs and now we are having a notice violation. that's why i think we should get the abatement proceedings going and upheld. questions? >> thank you. >> secretary: would the appellant like rebuttal?

>> commissioners, thank you again for your time. if i can just close out that you heard the tenant's attorney admit they did the work and that's really the predicament that we're in. work was done by the tenant that resulted in the code violations and the order of abatement. sometimes things take longer than one would wish to resolve, but we are intent to work on it. as i mentioned, we do have someone we can work with on the planning issue and also the code issue. i honestly don't know why a tenant would encourage an order of abatement to be recorded against title. it is an encumbrance that can affect the property. i'm surprised to hear them advocate for an order. but in conclusion, again, i want to raise the apel lapt -- appellant's request so we can give the board an update on the status of the plans. >> just to the comments about --

which i find a little bit that today is the first they have heard about that you were going to request a continuance and so on. is there any particular reason why the last two months you haven't reached to them this is the direction you're going? >> as far as the comment about the conditional use authorization, that was mentioned here at the hearing and tenant's counsel was present for that. and as far as a continuance request, that is something i'm making here right now. i don't believe it affects the tenants in any way. and i think they should be in favor of not having an order of abatement against title for the property. >> yeah. okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> are we finished? >> yes. conversation? >> commissioner walker. >> i don't see any further evidence presented here with this request and i don't believe

the decisions that have been presented are in our jurisdiction. that is why the planning department and planning commission is the place to go for the issue of going forward. that is what we did is to -- by our approving an abatement order, we asked that the process now happen at the planning commission. so, i'm always concerned when these go on liens. i think we all are as we consider our decisions. but i think it was pretty clear in our discussions last month when we discussed this or two months ago or whatever it was. you know, this is a situation where the city leaders who do

the business of legislation have actually put into law a process to deal with legalizing illegal units. and we have a hefty and helpful process in place. we offered that as we took our decision last time. i want to reinforce that. i would make a decision to uphold the order of abatement or deny the continuance request and put this where the decision needs to be made, in planning. we don't have a decision about this anymore. there is no evident to the contrary to reverse it. >> would you also add to your motion to uphold the assessment of costs? >> yes. >> and that the order of abatement was properly issued? >> yes. thank you. >> if i could talk to the attorney representing the

tenants please just for a second. i think the other counsel mentioned there really is nothing in here for you as tenants if this is filed if we uphold the abatement here today. and you were saying you kind of wanted this to be upheld today. is that correct? i'm just trying to understand -- for example, let's say -- and i do agree with you two months with no contact -- i don't really find that acceptable. i'm not trying to undermine that. let's just say starting today because i know the tone of our last hearing was let's see if we can work together here. and if it really doesn't matter to you and let's say for example if my vote was to continue this and we come back and here where we do have it filed with the planning department for conditional use and so on, would that not be acceptable to you?

>> that would be fine. my clients have been trying to do that for the last few years. my concern and i think the concern of the tenants is solely that they've been doing this now for months. saying that they're going to do this and then they don't. after every hearing that we've attended, counsel for the landlord has approached me and said you'll be hearing from me. and what i have heard is threats of, if your clients don't move out, we're going to evict them. and this last time since the last hearing, we heard nothing at all. so, i think that it should continue and if there's no repercussions, nothing is going to happen. and the problem is my clients are constantly worried about what's going to happen next. they have no idea and their lease is going to be up for renewal in the next several months. and they're concerned that if this conditional use permit is not finally obtained, the landlord is going to hold that up as a reason why they can't

renew the lease. even though it is at the land lord's doing that -- >> just -- and i agree with everything you said. i'm not trying to undermine your position. if we were to say -- i'm just trying this on, commissioner walker. because i'm still trying to hit this tone of cooperation. if let's say we were to reduce the 60 days to where we had it less time frame for them to get back -- >> add more time? >> no. less time. rather than 60 days -- >> like 30 days? >> exactly. a more kind of olive branch approach to everything here. and i do agree with them in regard to -- for example, i don't know their business. if they're refinancing their building. it does cause some problems. and that's not your concern. your concern is the tenants.

i get it. i think we're really close and i would like to see it be -- that we make some effort. i think there's a few more comments. i'm probably alone in this thinking. i'm just throwing it out there. >> well, actually i have questions for counsel. sorry. how long have your tenants been residents? >> for her? >> okay. >> i think these tenants have been there since about -- i would have to look at the lease. 2012 maybe. >> okay. >> but prior to them, there were other residential tenantses there. >> commissioner lee has a question for you. >> you mentioned the lease will expire in several months. can you be more specific? >> when is your lease up currently? [speaker away from mic] >> can you come up?

i'm sorry. please state your honname for t record. >> i'm mary mou. it ends at the end of the year. the option we have is as the current tenantses -- >> first right of refusal. >> exactly. >> are the terms outlined in the lease of why the landlord could not renew? >> the reasons why they can refuse our -- if we are defaulting or are -- if we have written notice that we are defaulting or are in breach of the lease. and we have not received any written notices so far. and we are allowed to exercise this option at the beginning of the april. as if give written notice that

we intend to -- >> okay. any other questions for the tenants of this property? okay. >> thank you. >> i have a question for owner's counsel. >> yes, commissioner. >> i understand this isn't under our jurisdiction. it sort of goes to intent around cooperation. i guess i would like to know for the record what is the intent of the owner when it comes to -- if the tenants issue a notice they intend to exercise their option, what's the response from the landlord going to be and the owner? >> it's going to be consistent with my position last time i was here, which is the owner is not going to agree to extend the lease based on the prior breach and default by the tenant. >> and what is that default? >> the breach of lease by illegally changing the

residence. i put the lease to my exhibit. >> i know. >> and again, the lease contemplates residential use, but only after the tenant obtains the required permits which did not happen in this case. that's the reason why we're here. there is an i understand lying breach of lease. and commissioners, if you have any other questions, i'm happy to answer them. the lease did commence in 2014. so, and that's also part of the record. it's an exhibit to the letter, mine dated if october of 2017. >> okay. >> and the previous -- >> sorry. so, this new lease was executed with this group of tenants? not with the previous tenants who were living there? >> there has been no authorized prior residential use at the building. so, counsel's comment is false. no residential use was allowed

at the property. now the person who came up and spoke, we don't recognize her. we don't know who she is. she's not a signatory to the lease. she wasn't a party to the lease. so, we don't know who she is. the tenant is actually an entity, an llc. and so, we don't know who that person is. >> i have one final question. again, i think this is going to our thinking of sort of, if our goal is collaboration in resolving this issue, the intent of both parties and what they want to do is relevant to that conversation. if i'm understanding correctly -- i have never -- in my experience, i have never seen a landlord execute a lease with a party expecting them to go to the planning department and legalize the unit through a

conditional use process. but you said the lease stated it was their responsibility, not the building owner to go to the planning department and legalize this unit to switch the use? >> that is correct. it was the tenant's obligation to spear head that endeavor. and it was prepared by a commercial broker, someone with experience that this city in preparing rental agreement and specific arrangements that are made between the landlord and the tenant as far as the work at the premises. >> i just wanted to clearly understand that. that is something i have never in almost 20 years in this field in the affordable housing industry ever seen anyone execute. i really appreciate that clarity. >> sure. >> commissioners walker. >> yes. i have a question to our city attorney. so, this is -- this request is for us to reverse the order of abatement. so, the issue that some

commissioners are forwarding about allowing more time would be to continue this matter to our next meeting. not having a decision reversed or having another decision about adding time. is that correct? bhald be our recourse -- what would be our recourse? to either deny or approve -- >> there can be one continuance up to 60 days. >> for the agenda item or for our decision? we wouldn't be amending our decision to add more time because i think we gave 60 days -- >> for the hearing to happen. so, you've given them actually 90 days since this was first heard in november. you could uphold -- i don't know if the board is inclined to uphold the abatement. you could allow them time to obtain the conditional use authorization, which i understand is a very lengthy process. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner warshell.

>> yes. i also am looking for a good resolution to it. and it seems to me that the thing that would be most persuasive to us that there was a good resolution is if the proper authorizations for conversion were made and this was all done properly and legally. and at least to my mind if the property owner would reconsider their point of view. we can't tell you to, obviously. but if you would at least give it consideration. as i heard commissioner walker's motion, the only thing that i might suggest is that we do

uphold the penalties currently. but should there be a good resolution to all this that correct permitting is achieved in cooperation between the landlord and using whatever resources the clients have already begun in their pursuit of legal conversion and some reconsideration to allow renewals so an arts organization is able to continue. if possible to reverse fines given the good resolution at some point in the future, i think that might be the

incentive to hopefully move this forward in as constructive a way possible for all parties concerned. >> commissioners, i might be an outlier in this conversation. and i'd really hoped to see more process. a c.u. process takes several months. we are looking at i think six to nine months. and there could be -- has to be notice. there could be neighbors who could oppose the conditional use, appeal the conditional use. i'm not say there would be. i heard no intent to have this relationship work out. and i think to have -- so, i think it is unfortunate possibly the tenants didn't understand

what they were signing when they entered into a lease. a conditional use process even on a small scale is a process. the gentleman who was here before i thought was a permit expediter which is a very different kind of person who is working on that case. i don't see the positive resolution. i think going back to our departments and our senior building inspector, this case has been lingering with us. we have a stove with no hood. we don't know how it was installed. i'm inclined to uphold the order of abatement and let the parties work this out while our process is parallel. it doesn't stop conversion. doesn't stop them coming to that resolution. but i just -- i don't see why we would extend this case. unless a commissioner has a different read or take on it. commissioner walker. >> and also, i get having

abatement having a lien, it is removalable by solving the issues. it is an incentive for getting resolution. that is our tool for moving things forward. anyway, i hope -- i mean, my motion stands, which is to uphold the order of abatement and add the collecting fees and moving this forward. >> i would second the motion. >> secretary: there is a motion and a second. >> can i ask -- >> go ahead. >> i think we have a motion on the floor. >> i'm going to generally repeat the motion. to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs. i will do the roll call.

president mccarthy? >> president mccarthy: yes. vice president walker? >> vice president walker: yes. >> i'm sorry commissioner walker. vice president gilman. >> commissioner gilman: yes. >> commissioner warshell? >> commissioner warshell: yes. >> secretary: midwest carries. next item -- motion carries. next item owner of record and appellant action requested by appellant because he is no working and unable to fix the violation and is selling the house. would the department like to come forward? sorry. the department will come forward and then you go.

>> good morning commissioners. i'm a senior housing inspector with housing and i'm here to respect our division. i was informed prior to today's meeting that the case is being abated. so all work to comply with the notice of violation was completed. so, that's the update. >> thank you. awesome. >> commissioner gilman: thank you. so, city attorney, it's been abated and all the work has been completed -- >> i think you still need to make a ruling on the case. >> commissioner gilman: make a ruling. okay. >> still grant the appeal. resoars the order of abatement and i don't know what you would want to do about any kind of fees and cost in that instance. >> commissioner gilman: okay. let's go through the process. the owner is here. this is very encouraging though.

>> good morning, commissioners. my name is jennifer tran. i'm the new owner and i already fixed all the issues to comply. >> commissioner gilman: okay. i think that's all. >> id like -- i would like to commends you on doing the work and having all the problems abated. we understand that you are the new owner. >> commissioner lee: i know the last time -- i remember this case. the last time we heard this, the n.o.v. was issued to previous owner and then you bought the house. they appealed the order of abatement and you came up and said i will fix everything and i will clear the abatement order. so, thank you. >> yes. >> commissioner lee: thank you. i appreciate that. >> commissioner gilman: thank you so much. >> thank you.

>> secretary: there public comment on this item? there's none. >> commissioner gilman: public comment is closed. commissioners. >> commissioner lee: i would like to make a motion to -- [laughter] >> i think you want to grant the appeal and reverse the order of abatement. >> commissioner lee: grant the appeal and reverse the order of abatement. and no fees. yeah. no fees. >> commissioner gilman: so, we have a motion to grant -- sorry. i need coffee. grant the appeal and wave all fees. >> reverse the order of abatement and wave all fees and that would be on the basis that the owner has abated the violation. >> commissioner gilman: correct. >> i would second. >> secretary: so, there's a motion and a second. we will do a roll call vote. vice president gilman? >> commissioner gilman: yes. >> commissioners dkonstin?

>> commissioner konstin: yes. >> secretary: the motion carries. item e is general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the agenda? seeing none. item f adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> secretary: is there a second? >> second. >> secretary: all commissioners in favor? [all ayes] >> secretary: we will take a break and reconvene as the building inspection comission. thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> thank you for being here this morning. i asked to come to do a tour of the hamilton family center, a resource serving our homeless population in san francisco for years. actually this is a place that my wife and i toured with the director of our homeless department about six years ago when i first came into office. it's an area that obviously as a father and family it pulls out our heart strings. and every year on christmas day when my wife and i take our children to station one and go to the firehouse, we come here as well to distribute toys for the family. it is critically important to me as a city, the issue of family homelessness that we continue to address it.

we have a goal to end homelessly by 2021, something mayor lee is very passionate about and i will continue and make sure we continue to dedicate the resources necessary to make that goal a reality. there are so many people and so many families in our school district that are homeless and as a city, we need to be dedicated towards it and you have my commitment over the next six months for that goal. i'm happy to take questions. >> reporter: are you satisfied with the way it's going for the implementation of the process? >> mayor farrell: it is so much more than that of course but they are a visible part of it. i appreciate all the work done, last year under mayor lee's

direction, it was implemented and we want to see it continue. the bottom line, we want to get people off the streets and get housing. it's something i fought for as supervisor and something i believe the city wants to see happen, get people into shelter and housing and get them off the streets. >> reporter: do you think they need to do a better job with that? >> mayor farrell: i think what we need to do is focus on the individuals on our streets. as i said, these are mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. we need to treat them with the respect they deserve and we need to treat them with compassion they deserve and understand they need to get out of tents and into shelters. no one is getting better by sleeping in tents on our streets. we want to support movement toward shelter and housing. >> reporter: i'm sure you have seen and heard the reports

[indiscernible] does more need to be done about that with the reports online? >> mayor farrell: i saw the report today. it is not shocking that car break-ins and property damage is high. it's something i hear from constituents about all the time. chief scott announced he is doubling the foot patrols and a separate unit dedicated to property crimes which is encouraging. what i had to ask him to do this week, do an analysis about the deployment of resources. we need to make sure we have the resources to combat this. i think we'll have to add resources, i think that is obvious, how we go about it, i want it to be analysis from the police department and something

i will support moving forward. >> anything else? >> updates on when you plan to announce district two appointment to fill your vacancy on the board? >> mayor farrell: i will start to meet with people over the next few days. no definitive timeline but sooner rather than later. >> reporter: and do you anticipate policy -- >> other people have questions, too. >> reporter: how do you respond to the african american community by replacing london breed? >> mayor farrell: i understand the concern, and the feelings that some folks have. and i have begun outreaching to a number of community leaders to address that, talk to our department heads and mayoral

staff to make sure my administration focuses on what ed lee was focused on, inclusion and advocating for community. and reaffirming my commitment to inclusion and equity and everything we do as a city government. i don't expect that process to be healed overnight but it's things i can do to make sure i'm a mayor representing every single person in san francisco. that's my commitment. >> thank you everybody. ♪

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it

with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement

depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific

neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

please silence your devices and when speaking before the commission f you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd li