Good evening and welcome to the general Public Comment sgrlz the presiding officer is ann lazarus joined by commissioner Vice President honda and communicating and xhig commissioner bobbie wilsons commissioner wilson will be a little bit and our da will provide advise and im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director were jind obey representatives from the departments that are cases before the aboard carli short is the Bureau Manager for the department of public works and well be joined shortly by Scott Sanchez the Zoning Administrator for the city that represents the Planning Department and Planning Commission and joe duffy who will represent the Vice President please carry on conversations out in the hallway. Process phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking sunshine ordinance, and thank you. Thank you you can should stand if you have our hand youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you thank you mr. Pacheco commissioner president lazarus we have one housekeeping a rehearing request for the dealing with the tree removal on lansing street that matter will not be heard tonight moving to number one the general Public Comment is there anyone here who wishes to speak to a matter on to think the jurisdiction not on tonights calendars please step forward. Good evening, commissioners im doug and 15 years ago, i joined with residents cross the city to storm a citywide the grassroots called the neighborhood free union to address the issue of the proliferation of Wireless Electronics it is my understanding a number of rehearing requests were filed r with verizon for appeals on july 1st, i wanted to provide some historical political and legal background with regard to the city and county of San Franciscos longstanding opposition to the installation of wireless facilities on polls eats and the public rightofway and the Authority Given you to reject those installations in appeals that come before the board following the Telecommunications Act of 1996 San Francisco began stacey rules that disfafrtd or prohibited wireless facilities in neighborhoods the wireless carriers began to challenge those rules in federal court by the year 2000 a growing body of federal Court Decisions developed the firmed rights of government to do so in response to the trend the wireless carriers taurthd the public right of ways around the Court Decisions and a means to bypass local regulations designed to protect residential areas from the wireless facilities it is next g network so you get permission to deploy antennas like verizon in the citys public right of ways the City Response was clear the Planning Commission unanimously voted against them to the and public rightofway due to the public opposition in the neighborhoods across San Francisco response was to file a lawsuit in the federal cowered in 2005 although next t won the lawsuit it was a victory that was substantially overturned by the Circuit Court of appeals and sprint versus san diego as a result San FranciscoCity Attorneys Office began to draft the permitting refrigerates that resulted in article 25 that was before you last week that was caused for considerable confusion die dot amendments after the successful lawsuit filed against the city i wanted to summarize from the outset the city of San Francisco has opposed wireless facilities in public rightofway and it is make sure to article 25 you have the authority and residents to deny those permits and that residents have the ability to be notified and make appeals before you i urge you on the rehearing request to keep those facts in mind. Any other general Public Comment seeing none commissioners item 2 which is commissioner questions or comments. I have a comment i would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of kate stevenly to here mother and father and Family Friends kate was a friend of mine i worked with her in 2006 and 2007 i want to say it my thought and prayers are the family and may you rest in peace. Thank you anything else commissioners any Public Comment on this. Yes. Im sorry my comments are such a little wealthy what i heard it raise the transmittal value in comparison to some of the things weve discussed but i still it is important pursuant to the Public Comment weve heard i walked away from that hearing where we did not support the appeals of those for wireless issues i walked away wanting to know more i got a sense from mr. Bryan that we were handcuffed in many ways in our ability to take action on by legal statutes and i think that would be really important for us to have a briefly briefing from someone that economical tells us the perimeters with regard to the wireless situation not only from the issue of you blockages from one person they would have to look at these fixtures from their living room or bedroom windows but also pursuant to the discussion of Public Health there what we heard was rhetoric that said mr. Bryan before i get might have in attributable tell me accordingly but we heard just because one persons view was blocked that was insufficient because the statute really tells you it has to effect the quarters of neighborhood as a whole and if i got it wrong it is the ambiguity i heard back, and, secondly, with regard inform height there is an ongoing discussion as to the amount of radiation coming off the boxes and the provides say we meet the federal standards they may be wrong or set too high bans when they were set long ago but not upholding those appeals we maybe contributing to a Health Hazard city and county of San Francisco i want to know more about the law and more about the Health Issues before i hear aol. Com another one i for one hear another one of those and have to support something that maybe i take it not so excited about supporting if we could arrange that madam president. I can certainly well commissioner. Mr. Bryan can you help us on that. Before i start they have been a number of briefings that occurred throughout the last ten years perhaps as a starting point those briefings can be transmitted to you and sure my point of view commissioner is that a briefing that may have been delivered several years ago new stuff with regard especially Health Hazard may have been discovered ways we have more experience and everyone has a phone in their ear from a legal clarification what is the truly what is the law and what are the perimeters that this commission has to operate under. My recommendation to that i can work with the City Attorneys Office to provide i and if there is Additional Information you want well extend. I agree with commissioner fung please. The links are important. Although i participated last year from at t i can get those as well thank you. Anything else commissioners on item 2 any Public Comment on item number 2 seeing none weve move to item 3 k34irgsz thats our consideration of the minutes of july 21st. Any additions, deletions, or changes if not may have a motion to approve the minutes. Well approve the minute any Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none mr. Pacheco call the roll please theres a 340gs from commissioner swig to adopt the july 1st, 2015, minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 4 to zero those minutes are adopted thank you item number 4 is withdrawn item 5 ab those are appeal numbers the first filed by the restaurant and the groves rights resources against the public works on vera did care street appealing the conditions imposed on may 2015 and the other protesting the issuance of the same permit to the restaurant the sidewalk chair and tooblz for that 10 chairs and tables with operating hours to be 11 00 a. M. To 9 30 p. M. Daily those matters are combined we first hear from the appellant for the grove residents rights resource and well hear if the restaurant that presents their appeal to the board as well as respond to the claims by the Neighborhood Group so if we could hear from the residents first. And, sir youll have 7 minutes to present our case youll have 7 minutes to present your case. Sorry about that this delay having a tech problem here a connectivity problem okay. It is ill im not a lawyer dont. Can you speak into the mike and state your name. I run the website called the web source it was meant to be a resource to fight some of the problems on grove street everyone is working independently so i thought maybe well put together a resource that keeps everybody informed and on the same page ive really dont harder know where to begin now do you understand correctly our unfamiliar with the situation nothing that was said at the hear hearing in january. Just the material. Just that okay well if i can get my notes open that will going easier for sure all right. Im going to have to extend this isnt working a lot of strange things are going on surrounding this ive been at a loss to understand the behavior the Police Officer and dpw in particular with the restaurant or should i say restaurant and sports bar in half the building and sports bar in half of the garage thirty28 people when myself and a neighbor took it upon ourselves to notify the residents because the about the permit hearing that was put in an absorbed location as ive submitted in any brief inside the foyer so all restaurants clients could see that clearly and absorbed by the corner of the building and dpw own photographs theyve entered into evidence 3 feet away from the public sidewalks you cant see it, it is hundred percent blocked by the corner of recessed corner that the notice was posted in how much is it necessary to repeat i assume youve read that. Okay. Dpws rely was unaffordableable i couldnt believe this was the printed in the record product of the city we have residents that said we have a problem a very big problem on the block we need help and dpw response was okay. Well ill tell you what well make the problem worse and call it a compromise that didnt make sense their claiming that you mention they rolled back the hours took two or three hours off and made it 10 and a half hours as a compromise to say were not going to change well give you restaurant tshirts as a compromise we didnt want and any compromise is a win for the restaurant and thirty pope people 28 personal letters asking dpw not to do this they tried to gain the system they asked originally for outdoor on a resident block other 3 30 this the morning nobody wants the seating until 12 30 that was a dishonest request dpw can say while chop to down from way to too late and theres is a compromise we didnt have the luxury of requesting that it be open for a negative 12 hours it is kind of like if youre drying e trying to buy a car for 12,000 and they say we think that is worth hundred and 50 and compromise thats not a compromise weve undid you read the amounting i call it the food under our bedroom windows i want to point out two blocks away where the rich folks were awe initiated by the buses apparently the city jumps and make sure we dont have to live with that but yet we not a pga sound an conscionable loud noise a nuance that goes on on for six or eight hours without a second of interruption from that restaurant and bar now theyre saying dpw says ill i have to tell you well move it past the garage thirty feet uaw and the restaurant says we want it respected underneath the bedroom windows because we feel that by extending our chaos onto the public sidewalks things will be more controlled and taking the madness and making that bigger that is utter nuance youll notice in their materials we refer to the garage as a covered patio it is insulting it is a lie i encourage you to go to the property and look for a covered patio it is a garage theyre trying to make it sound like it is something that the neighborhood expect it is constant noise it is a garage sea they open the doors and call it a patio it has offices above inside the building i see im out of time thank you. clapping . Please. We can hear from o the restaurant. Because you are both defending the appeal by the grove residence and filed your own appeal you have 14 minutes. Thank you to the board of appeals for hearing our appeal today, im george angle architect ive been engaged by the restaurant to assist in the progressing of the permit for the outdoor seats if i may im going to paraphrase some of the things im assuming you read the appellants brief but basically, i have an additional document that i thought to share that i can give you now. Preferring show should is on the overhead. Shall i put it here. Face up. Face up . Let me see how this does see how that does it didnt read that well but well make due when i first went and combroersz the outdoor seating i went to the Planning Department and spoke with a planner originally the restaurant approached me saying they wanted to have outdoor seats outside of their existing covered patio it is in fact mechanics garage that was converted when the garage carriers are opened it is the nomenclature it stuck for the time being but basically they wanted to extend the seating into the public rightofway as many restaurants do when i approached the planner the planner was very supportive of it and went so many to explain the history of outdoor seats in San Francisco as restaurants and the better streets plan passed by governor Jerry Brown Newsom was a oil for the outside seats and brought of an example of the areas that have benefited tremendously from the outdoor seats in terms of reduction in crime and participation in the street life so it is something that he encouraged and actually asked us to extend the seats from this area im going to refer to as ed thats why i put it on the plans to this area along grove street and in fact asked us to what wrap the seats around divisadero the scope of the project kind of came from the seeds of the meeting i had with the Planning Department several weeks ago ago so the seats is a product of so we filled the application for the seatinging plan and the results was we were approved to put seating on grove street only in front of area b the area not in front of of the garage but towards the divisadero and also have a reduction in hours or restriction in seeking so in short the owners are filing the hours of reduction of seating but the whole point of experience originally was to extend an existing sort of indoor outdoor space into the rightofway and that is the the condition the department of Public Health is requesting an appeal for i mean, ill list the reasons why the appeal is being took place here just to remind you one of the areas frovnt the garage has a flat fronting the routine e restaurant on grove street one it makes the presence of outdoor seating for comfortable and two as an architect has done a lot of public accommodations Retail Stores accessibility plays that factor and the facilitation is important for restaurant restaurants are target for litigation cases for excessive ability issues i want to