Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 72716 20160804

Welcome to july 27, 2016 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals, the boards president is presiding tonight, that is darryl honda and hes joined by frank fung, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner bob wilson and rick swig, we will be joined by our deputy city attorney, bob owen, at the control iss the boards legal assistant, gary and im cynthia goldstein, the boards executive director w. ear groined by representatives of the city departments that have cases before the board this evening, [inaudible] and next to him is scott sanchez, the Zoning Administrator whos also represent thing Planning Department and Planning Commission, and in the front row is [inaudible] shaw representing the Public Works Bureau of streets use and mapping and chris buck also representing San Francisco public works and hes with the bureau of urban forestry, the board requests that you silence all phone and is all Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on conversation dms the hallway, the boards rule of presentation, appellant, permit holders and department responders are given 7 min touts to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal, they must include their comments within the 7 or three minute period, members of the public have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the end of the microphone, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, youre asked but not required the submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are Customer Satisfaction survey forms at the podium for your convenience, if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the boards rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, were located at 1650 mission street. This meeting is broadcast life on sf gov tv, channel 78 and rebroadcast at 4 p. M. On khal nel 26, dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sf gov tv, now we will swear in or affirm all those who plan to testify. All members of tub mrik may speak without taking an oath under the sunshine ordinance f you intend to testify on any of tonights hear advising give your testimony evidentiary rate, please stand and raise your hand and say i do after you have been wormed or affirmed swearingin of testifiers objection, so item number 1 is general Public Comment, this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board on matters within the boards subject matter jurisdiction but that are not on tonights calendar, is there any general Public Comment tonight . Okay, seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . I would like to congratulate commissioner rick swig and frank fung on their reappointment to this body for the next four years. Sxfrjts we can congratulate darryl honda on his reappointment. Okay, is there any other commissioner comments . Okay, any Public Comment . Okay, then well move on to item 3 which is the boards consideration and possible adoption of the minutes of the july 20, 2016 meeting. Do i have any additions or changes from my fellow commissioners . If not, may i have a motion . I would recommend one change, on appeal 16080, item number 8, under action, the fourth line after elevator wall, delete does not exceed and insert with is a minimum of, after 54, delete dba and insert stc, i think it will be clearer that way. Do you mean minimum or do you mean maximum . No, minimum of the sound transmission rating. Okay. And vicepresident , would you find saying what stc stands for sound truncation coefficients. Coefficient. Any other revisions to these . Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Okay, so i think we still need a motion. Move adoption with the amendment. Thank you. On that motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes as amended, vicepresident fung . Frjts aye. President honda aye. Commissioner wilson, commissioner swig . Aye. That carries with a vote of 50. President honda, there was a suggestion that we may want to take one of the items out of order tonight and i dont know if you want to consider that. This would be item number 8, appeal number 16106 which was continued just so that there could be another vote taken, the hearing has been held. Why dont we go ahead and proceed with that. Okay. So, we will take that item out of order, this is item 8, appeal number 16106, steven ganz versus the zoning m ins rate torx the property is 425 brannan street, appeal thing is wans on may 27, 2016 of a letter of determination regarding whether the second floor was legally converted to the office space prior to the property being subject to the current sli zoning, this was heard on july 6 20, 16 and is on for further consideration today. This matter was continued to allow commissioner wilson to participate in the final so et. On july 6, 2016, vicepresident fung mover today grant the appeal and overdetermined the letter of the determination on the basis that the zoning determination eared in determines the 199 permit was not reflective of an office use, that was 311, the vicepresident moved the appeal to allow another vote to be taken with commissioner wilsons participation sx, commissioner wilson has indicated that she has reviewed the file and the video. I have. And that youre prepared to participate in a vote. Im prepared. Okay, and unless there are any Board Members would wish to ask questions of a party, we can move into deliberation and entertain a new motion. Madam executive direct torx i want to reiterate that i have used mar tell and brawn in the past for unrelated items and the use of them would noted have any impact on my ability to make fair judgment today. Okay. So, again, if there are no commissioner questions for the party, we are back into deliberation and the board can make a board member may make a motion or otherwise move forward. I dont need more, i listened to the deliberations. Okay. Do we need another motion . We need a motion, yeah. Ill reiterate my original motion. Okay. Which was that the Zoning Administrator eared in determining that the permit was not reflective of the office use. Okay, so on that motion from the vicepresident to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination on the basis of the Zoning Administrator e rr ed in determined the 1999 perments was not reflective of an office use . Commissioner lazarus no. Commissioner lond da abilities aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. Commissioner swig . Aye. That carry widths a vote of 41. So, then president honda websinger eel move back to item 4, mitchell which is appeal number 16092, Mitchell Kemp versus San Francisco public works, 1590 sacramento street, protesting the is you wans on april 19, 2016 to extenet s m systems, this was heard on july, 2016 and continue today have the department of Public Health appear before the board of their review of wireless box permits, i would ask if there is someone here from Public Health to please step forward and president , shall we give them three minutes then to the board . Three minutes. Good eve anyones my name is patrick foal, im the principal inspector currently managing the sale antenna program for Public Health, to my right is [inaudible] tes l er, Senior Inspector with our program and serving as the technical lead. I understand there were questions raised concerning the utility pole installation of the extenet antenna, were here to answer your questions. Weve heard so many of these, which one was commissioner swig . So, in this in the documentation, there were notes that said the standard is 6 feet, and that was at 100 watts, then there was a change of the equipment and it went to 120 watts and then suddenly the standard moved to four feet. And so im not a technologist, i have no idea what im talking about but it just i found it strange that a more powerful piece of equipment suddenly had a radius that was smaller thab a previous piece of equipment and the inconsistencies were very confusing. Yeah, i think thats a vl lid question, we had the same question when we looked at both reports as well. Just for clarity, the stc standard for these frequencies is one mill watt per centimeter squared, thats the public standard, so for that power density, one mitt watt per centimeter swearbacker scared, that would be the limit of any public exposure in the area, so were looking at in the review of these reports to make a determination whether or not preinstallation, were going to exceed bha fr the level is and its f its frequency depend, the public would occupy, the initial report that was prepared and i think we have an illustration of this, yeah. So, the initial report that we received was based on i dont want to get into too much technical here, it was a far field calculation which is approved by the fcc as a calculation you can use to determine these. What it provides is an extremely conservative limit that that one millimeter would be reached at that ands the doted line that is directed here, these are intentional an ten nas, so the height of the antenna, 30 feet, east and west on sacramento at the height of the antenna, that original calculation would be the dotted line. Thats where you would that bubble or balloon if you will pointing in each direction is where we would expect that limit to be. The calculation that was revised was using the near field calculation which would give a more precise measurement of where we would anticipate to see those levels exceeded, and thats the blue one, and thats the four feet limit. The difference between those two is the calculation that was used to make that determination, one was using a far field calculation, the others oozing the near field calculation which is a more precise measurement of whats there. I should point out that its still pretty conservative. We would anticipate that the actual measured meter red levels of rf energy there would be somewhat less than four feet and thats pretty much what has been the proof in the pudding so far with these utility pole, three feet or less. These studies are not made by the department of Public Health but you received these studies from third party, evaluate these based as an example and based on those studies and your calculations, you affirm what is the guideline . Correct, so the Health Department doesnt spend the hundred of hours to do the actual modeling on these. What we ask is that those models be done by license engineer who is are experts in the field, which is the case here, sms somebody whos done a lot of these. What were looking for is to make sure a licensed engineer is doing them and theyre using models based on the calculations that have been approved by the fcc. Weve developed sort of an 11 point bunch list of the things we want to see included, a lot of engineers provide more information than those but these are sort of what we feel having done this with planning since 1996 is are the appropriate things we should be looking for when evaluating these reports. So, when we see in the future this as it was presented because it wasnt presented with the elegance in which you just explained it, it was just a matter, we did 100 watt and it was 6 and it was 120 watts and it was four and thats it and it was approved. Its good to know youre doing these behind every single one of these. We are and this is a preinstallation calculation, so really the proof is in the post installation measurements, if its messed up, were going to find out then and then its an expensive removal and taking down the antenna and going through the process all over again so theres some incentive of getting it right. The product will have a fail safe and there will be a post installation or same criteria and hopefully it will in the same parameters . There you go, and we have calibrated meters for doing that sort of verification, we would be happy to do that in this case. Thank you very much for that explanation. You test every installation . No, so every installation is required to be tested by a third party. The ones that we get involved in are the ones where there are either complaints or issues that are raised periodically. Well hear that neighborhood people do not trust the third party that was hired to do the measurements in which case were happy to come out and either do side by side measurements at the same time or do them independent to verify whats going on in the actual environment, we dont test them all but we do bh were asked to. The third party tester, is it usually the same one would did the calcs . It can be and in many case, it is but it doesnt have to be. It needs to be again a licensed engineer in the state of california and somebody whos an expert in the field. Even in the field of engineering and electrical engineering, this is a specialized field of rf, theres not a lot of people that are doing radio frequency energy, the takeoff of the cell phone industry has pushed that a little bit and in the last 12 10, 12 years, they are getting involved in all of this but its a specialized piece of engineering. Go ahead. Okay, i have a question, so roughly how many installations has your department overseen or done in San Francisco so far . Youre talking about dpw utility poles . These boosters for the cellular. Er theres a couple of broad categories of cell antenna installation, you have the ones that the Planning Department oversees and those are the ones that basically are overseen by the wireless guideline that is the Planning Department came out with in 1996. Those are the large macro installations that go on top of buildings, what dpw are involved in are the utility pole installations that were talk about this evening and thats overseen by the public works code, thats a special category that was carved out. I know that article very well. Im sure you do. And the exact numbers, i dont know larry if you know, theres hundreds of these things. And out of the hundreds that have been installed, have any been in noncompliance . None that we have gone out and tested and have seen and none that are not in compliance. These are and you guys havent been able to see the larger ones and the reports that get submitted for these, but on the relative scale, these are fairly low power an ten nas, 100, 122 watts compared to tens of thousands of watts for the installations on buildings. Okay, thank you. I have a question, a pretty naive one, where it says ensure theres no publicly occupied areas within 4 feet, 6 feet, what is the definition of publicly occupied means, is that somebody on the street or behind the window in their residence . Thats a good question, the way we interpret it is anybody in the public, if its somebody from the public to be exposed. That would be include the fire escape, even though thats not some place somebodys going to be living 24 hours, theres a potential for someone to be in that space so we want to make sure that complies with the standard. This provides a very conservative way of looking at compliance with the fcc. So, yeah, were looking at basically on the street, people passing by, any of those places, even in the case of rooftop installation, rooftops where the public may have access even if the rooftop isnt designed for public access, it may not have a parapet but the public may be there. We want to comply with those standards as well. Okay. Now we know. Thank you very much. Alright, youre welcome. President honda, i think that the Zoning Administrator also wanted fed to address the board on this appeal if thats acceptable. Thats fine, plus i have a question for the permit holder as well after. We should give time to the rest of the parties to speak given that weve had this additional testimony. Scott sanchez, Planning Department, the Planning Department does support the design of this proposal as well as the proposal on the next case, i just wanted to bring to light some recent information for the board of appeals for your information. Extenet, we have approved other facility ins San Francisco, it has come to our attention that those facility ares not in compliance with the conditions of approval, that the Planning Department has required for those and in particular, the size of the shroud, we aproved it 10 and a half inch, ne aoerp arguing at 14. 5 inches, the switch boxes on there seem to be different than what we had approved and some of the cables were painted and there may be cases with additional meters that were o ersz approved. Weve discussed this with the department of public work, they are initiating enforcement to bring those properties into compliance. One of the features of the public works code in section 1517 does allow for the public works code Public Works Department if theyve exercised all their reasonable effort tos bring someone into compliance, theyre still hesitant to do so. Public works has the ability to deny other permits for other facility and is were sure with these tool, well be able to bring them into compliance, but i did want to make sure the board of appeals had that information as we are aware they have other sights which are not in compliance and we would assume that these sites are going to be built in full compliance with the plans that we have approved. Ive got a question, mr. Sanchez, so do you know approximately how many unit ares not in compliance . Its my understanding that it may be as many as 23 sites. Have any of those particular sites been before this board . I do not know that information, no. Ill ask the permit holder that. Thank you. Scott, out of 20something site, out of how many does extenet have . I think thats all that they have. Every one of them . Frjts dhe can address that, my understanding is that its the sites that have been approved but perhaps its not all of the sites. Thank you. Should we hear from the Department Next . Okay. Mr. Shaw . Goods evening, rahal shaw with public would besinger, just to speak on what scott mentioned, yes, so we did become recently aware of 23 wireless installations which are different from the approved plans and its what mr. Sanchez testified to, its the switch boxes i believe, theyre a little larger than what was on the proposed plans, so pursuant to section 1517, pub lib works issued notices of deficiency earlier this week on the 25th and then whait allows them to do is 30 calendar days to bring the sites into compliance and then if its not done within that timely fashion, then the department can take further action if needed. How did you become aware of this . So, i believe we are our department was contacted by the Planning Department originally and then we followed up with specific inspections and then we were able to go out and confirm. So, my same question to you would be, if they only have 23 sites, are the sites we heard prior on this board on those are those applicable . I did not research if those were previously at the board, im hoping extenet can testify to that, i can also get back and confirm which ones exactly, i have a list of all the permit numbers so i can go back and check which ones, if any have gone to the board. Thank you. So, mr. Shaw, how many sites does extenet have . I dont have that information handy with me. If you could find that . Absolutely, yes. Thank you. So, we can hear from the permit holder. Good evening, commissioners, matthew urgavih on behalf of the permit holder, extenet, its been brought to our attention this week that a number of sites are out of compliance, the noncompliance focus is primarily on an emergency shutoff switch t emergency shutoff switch that was permitted is approximately 9 inches long i believe, i forget the exact dimensioned what was installed was volume metrically smaller but the face is approximately half of an inch longer and two inches wider i believe, so were working to resolve that issue by swapping out the cutoff switch and replaced that was actually permitted. Regarding the shroud, its a difference between a 10 inch shroud that was permitted and approximately i think 14. 5 inch shroud that was deployed. It has to do with fitting a certain wireless meter under the shroud and the extra space was needed to fit that wireless meter so that no meter needed to be deployed on the pole itself. I think there was a misunderstanding that occurred with planning and dpw and we are working dpw and planning to resolve that issue immediately. I have a question. Are you finished . Yes. If i may, its a little odd, we want you to answer the questions and ill say with respect to the permit at hand, we hope that your questions have been answered regarding the presentation by dph and that in that particular case, we went through the process of refiling and having a second round of protests, the conditions remain consistent with the tentative approval to the final determination to the actual notice, so we would ask you to proceed with following the recommendation of the department on that and now ill let you continue your questions. Okay. So, one, is this the cab bet completely sdmrient is the case thats before us completely compliant . Correct, the case thats before you will be installed as permitted. As permitted. Correct. And then the other question i have is when did you become aware that your equipment was noncompliant . I became aware, i was asked about it last week by dpw and so i personally investigated it last week and dug into it and found, you know, exaly what occurred, the difference in sizes of the cutoff switch and the shroud. And then the same question i had presented before the other two is how many cases had been heard in front of this board have noncompliant equipment on them . There were 23 sites that were referenced in the letter by dpw and i dont know yet if any of those came before you all. Could you research that and find that out for us . Yes, i will research that. And do you know how many sites extenet has in the city . Currently constructed . I would say approximately 250, give or take. And these that are noncompliant are all recent ones . Recent within the last two years, yes. And i think that, again, part of the noncompliance has to do with facilitating pg es requirements, particularly with regard to the emergency shutoff switch and this wireless meter that fits under the shroud. Thank you. If i may, this is the first i am aware of this violation but i am aware of another situation and that was that a number of pole that is puc thought they owned that were light standards in fact it turned out belonged to pg e, so when the process went forward, the design of the puc pole doesnt require a meter because power is obtained from the puc for the city, while the power was obtain framed pg e, they said they beneath needed a meter and a full glass meter with a light standard and pge came up with a hockey puck meter which filets on top of a light standard which is a shroud, so this is a surprise that what were thought to be puc light standards turned out to be pg e and now require a meter instead of a cutoff switch and thats the source of the confusion on these limited number of poles. And you became aware of this now . I personally became aware of im not sure what this is. Like today. Im verizons attorney, i was not aware of this extenet solution, of the violations, i was aware of the hockey puck meter situation but only in terms of legal aspects i have to say and not in terms of technical space or other aspects. Okay, thank you, do you have a question . I have a question of mr. Sanchez. Thank you. If this information had been known at the beginning and the design had been presented, i guess as it should have been, would that have been approved . Do you sort of have to go with whats required for the installation . Well, our wireless staff is here and maybe she can answer in more detail, its my understanding that staff went staff from puc as well as pg e and viewed mock ups of the slimmer stealth and that was acceptable to everyone, they were confused as to why that is no longer acceptable to pg e and its possible na the larger stealth may be acceptable, but i think they need to show that there really is no way to accomplish the narrow proposal xh seemed to have worked for everyone at some point in time. In other words, theres a possibility that you would have disapproved those . Or sought other alternatives that would have a slimmer profile. Theres a lot of creative ways to address these situations. I realize its not relevant to the permit but i wanted to ask it anyway. Does your staff want to say anything . Im here to answer any questions. Woe are currently work witching other carriers to come up with a better solution for these pg e poles. There are a number of allege tern tiffs that could be utilized. The issue here is the conditions of approval indicated that if any changes were to be made to the design, they would come back through us through the Planning Department. All 23 that is under examination now are pg e poles . From what i understand, yeah, and there are 23 that were cited but not necessarily, we havent bedecked all extenet pole, pg e poles and extenet installed on, so 23 known violations. You say there could be other pg e poles previously yes. Wow. I hear a lot of rehearing requests. I have another question for mr. Shaw. And would you find out if the closed captioning could be turned on, if you could wo several issues, the first issue is that go ahead. If first issue is that the facility under which this conversation discussion had surrounded is inadequately inaccurately described. There are no drawings that show the bay window, none, none were ever taken, no measured drawings. The description in the engineering reports describing the physical circumstances of the site in relation to the building is wrong. It was wrong in the first edison report, it was wrong in the second one, it was wrong in the third one. The description does not exist. It doesnt exist, the kind of measurements calculated to the pole to these nonexistent features have no meaning, and also there are several issues here with the way the Health Department has treated this, again, we saw a drawing but a drawing based on something that they had no measured drawings, no plans or anything to indicate the location of the facilities rather of the elements and the site to the pole, okay, so they were winging it. After my remarks, i have a new set of photographs here that show the relation of the pole to the window and the fire esskaip. The off sited fire escape, it get all the radiation, the fire escape ta doesnt exist, the fire escape that has been cited in every single document, briefs, letters, engineering documents, it doesnt exist, and this is what its been based on. Here we have a sloppy, indefensible way of doing business, and the whole argument for it is somehow because this is publicly good, somehow its good for everybody, it really doesnt matter if we pay much attention to what were doing. So, i would like to cite beside the 46 feet change the public requirement, or another issue here that came up in the department of Public Health conditions, and that is extenet should have in place a mechanism for taking rf power density levels nearby buildings when requested by members of the general public, i took that up with hamot and edison and they already fogged in whether or not this existed, you can ask hamot and edison about it, i think this reflects the general lack of thought, procedure, and concern with these applications. Thank you. Photographs, anyone . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Can you f can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on this item . I see two hands, is that right . This is the second time for this so i think two minutes were going to limit Public Comment to two minutes. Good evening, my name is leora, im with sf faction for cell phone technology, Cellular Technology in our neighborhoods, this site in particular is important to myself and some of my cohorts because it is directly around the corner of a local business called [inaudible] patinskies and they have been hosting our campaigns, particularly the Campaign Last fall, so with we were canvassing and we were doing Voter Registration and turning out folks for that election, we really relied on our cell phones to text each other, to make sure we knew where every was, to organize, so for this neighborhood, for the people that work there, its easy to get caught up in the details of the poles and the meters and all of the things that they require, but at the end of the day, were talking about cell phone reception and providing a service for thousands of people throughout the city. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. May i ask her a question. Yes, question, please. Im interested in your organization, youve been in front of us a couple of times, who funds your organization . We have a variety of individuals and other organizations that fund us. Are you fund at all by Cell Phone Companies or cell phone Installation Companies . I would have to check. Okay, next time you come by, i would love to get a clear answer whether youre funded by Cell Phone Companies or cell phone Installation Companies. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, my name is dick allen, i live in Golden Gate Heights neighborhood, i serve on the Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association board and also on the sharp board and my specialty is neighborhood zoning and discretionary review issues. Ive been involved in this sort of thing for many years. My main concern is that San Francisco continues to keep up with the demand for Cellular Technology. Also i want to thank the Health Department for being here today and clearing up any concerns that some of you may have had. I hope their answers were satisfactory. So, im encouraging at least the majority of you to support the two projects, this one and the one following, and thats those are my remarks, thank you. Sir, do you miss the Planning Commission . My hearing isnt working tonight. Do you miss the Planning Commission . Did i miss the do you miss being on the Planning Commission . I was really having a good time up until a few seconds ago. Thank you, sir. That was a buzz saw, thank you. See in the block pic, thank you. Next speaker. Hello, im [inaudible] pentacostas and im a s int thats a heavy consumer of cellular and media in general. Whenever i come into the city, i go around quite a bit, i confess that im a pokemon go player, around the city, cellular reception varies loudly, if its not all working as it should be the best that it can be, not only can some people not find the pokemon they want, sometimes we cannot reach our friends and families and email my teachers perhaps about my essays or assignment that is are due. My father would works as a taxi driver in the city and works off of his phone experiences issues in certain parts, and as time progresses, the issue of a lack of cellular power to peoples devices will not simply sit there, it will get worse and worse unless more infrastructure is provided. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other Public Comments . Seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. Is there somebody else, madam director . Im sorry . Other member of the public . Somebody raised his hand. Is there someone who wants to speak on this item, were on item 4, this is appeal 16092. [inaudible]. Please come to the podium prior to speaking. Hi, so my names diego, i live in berkeley but you live in San Francisco and this would greatly benefit me in those places since my rush to go through here, [inaudible] it definitely would help to get greater cell service in San Francisco where i occasionally volunteer in political campaigns and i can tell you phone banking, that makes all the difference between the faster and success, however, i want to address the potential actual concerns that people may have about the risk of cancer, so i brought two studies for well a study and an editorial that cites a study for you all, from the conclusion of the danish cohort study, ill read the first paragraph of the conclusions, more than 420 thousand cellular telephone users found tumor of the brain and salivary gland tumors that are a primary issue that already had cancer or most expected on the general population, there was no evidence for a response relationship with these cancers based on the [inaudible] as a subscriber, they saw no unusual clusters to undue exposures to rf, the cancer risks applied equally to analog and digital systems, so some editorial here citing it from a fizz v is from the university of maryland which i ran out of time to read, but this explain it is science why this particular form of radiation could not provide the energy needed to mutate cells to create cancer. Thank you. Question for you, osier since youre from berkeley, how did you hear of this hearing . I look at agendas for various boards and commissions, i work as a journalist out here. I know youre are you part f of the group that has spoken earlier prior to . No. Okay, thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. I think they need to address their issues with the department on the wide range of whether its misunderstandings or not in compliance before we act upon a permit. So what are you suggesting, vicepresident . Im suggesting a continuance at the call of the chair. I dont agree. I think this was just discovered, they barely had a chance to respond and this is a separate pole and a separate permit. Im somewhat in agreement. I think its a pretty large company, they know what theyre doing. They evidently have a lot of professional help in doing what they do, and if theyre at this point just finding out months and months later that this is a problem, and i believe that they were aware of this the last time they came before this board and did not disclose it and im especially concerned about that because they know that the information that was withheld wa, i would imagine, important information, so i would say i would agree with vicepresident fungs recommendation to hold this off or continue this to the call of the chair until their bugs get worked out. Commissioner fung, are you subjectinging that this specific item and other items as well that may come in front of us before these issues are resolved, that we just so continue them all, are we going to run into this . I would suggest that. You would suggest that . Yes. Okay, thanks. I mean i have a question. For this particular one before us is in compliance, no . We dont know. According to them. Well, if you listen to the appellate, he says the documentation on the design was inadequate. The missing fire escape . The missing profile of the building is not as per the actual. What you saw in this diagram is much more accurate than anything in their lamentation. Can i ask the rep sedative from the Health Department come up. You put a picture on to the overhead earlier. Was that information given to the appellant prior, part of the Information Package that goes out because we have never seen that and the illustrations that i saw personally were really poor. But that is very descriptive and what was that done and was it done specifically for this case . It was done specifically for this case in anticipation of the questions that were raised last wednesday, so i dont believe that was a part of the original package. I didnt see quau f what you guys got though. Being from the department and as concerned as people are whether they have a rightful concern or not or article 25 gives them the right or not, i feel that those type of disbursements should be included in the package that is are sent out and given them information because evidently the appellant here felt as i said by looking at these drawings that it went from 2 feet as commissioner swig said to 6 feet to 4 feet and looking at the cement square nas are two feet, they didnt jog for me either, okay, so they were not given to the appellant prior, they were made specifically for this hearing, correct . That is my understanding, yes. Okay, thank you, that was my question. Any other questions . Thank you. Thank you. Further comments . If not, ill make a motion. Motionvicepresident . Frjts move to continue this item to the call of the chair pending resolution of permit holders noncompliance issues with the department of public works. Thank you, vicepresident on that motion of the vicepresident to continue this item to the call of the chair to allow time for the permit holder to resolve their noncompliance issues with the San Francisco public works, commissioner lazarus . No. President honda . Aye. Commissioner wilson . Sorry, im still thinking. No worries. Aye. Thank you, and commissioner swig . Aye. That motion does carry with a vote of 41, this item will be sent to the boards call of the chair calendar. Thank you. Move on them to item number 5, appeal number 16099, Mary Mccausland versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of street use and mapping, 1278 jackson street, protesting the issuance on may 3, 2016 to Extenet Systems of a wireless box permit, construction of a pyrexes Wireless Service facility, this is permit number 15wr0414, and we will start with the applicant ms. Mccausland, you have 7 minutes to present your case to the board. My name is Mary Mccausland and im a retired labor and delivery room nurse, i reside at 1278 jackson street. My appeal was the pole is right outside my window and its there and i see it and the second pole is going to be a lot taller and there was attachments made and my concern was that it would cause more darkness into my apartment and i spend a fair amount of time now in my apartment and i was concerned about the amount of light that would come in, and i know there has been a letter was sent out to me saying theres no reason or no legal reason why i should be appealing this, and im not technical at all, but i just i know that there hasnt been any shadow studies done to say how much light would be blocked or not and thats the thing i would like to address, you know. I mean, is it going to be thrown up there and i will have to accept it . Ive stayed in that apartment for quite a long time now since 85, and once its up, thats it, or is there Something Like getting a study done to see how much light will actually be blocked . And, i mean, thats my concern, so im not technical, and also theyre going to add parts on to that pole, so thank you very much for allowing me to come here and voice my concern. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, so we can hear from the perm holder. Good evening, faubl outside council for Verizon Wireless and representing extenet this evening, this particular pole was applied for june of last year and it is a pg e pole, its a ewe filt pole, its a jpa pole so its partly owned by all of the utilities, as you probably looked at, its a standoff antenna, about 2 feet by 14. 5 inches in diameter, when the Planning Department reviewed this application, they came back to extenet and said, can you please put the antenna a minimum of 10 feet away from the building, that required the design of a custom extension bar to hold the antenna about three feet away from the pole. Were required to put the an nen na a distance of the pole under general order 95 which allows alignment to climb up behind the antenna, extenet designed a custom extension bracket so that the antenna would be further away from the build, it required wind loading and strauk churl calculations in order to satisfy pg e with respect to the Structural Integrity of placing this bracket on and that was then reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, notice was provided and the Planning Department did not recommend any condition regarding obstructing light and view with respect to this particular application, so theres no condition regarding obstructing light and view. As you know, a part of your careful representation, the Department Also passed a new order earlier in this year which defined what obstructing light and view is and in that case with a standoff bracket, its anything 6 feet from the build hatings more than 20 inches in diameter, this particular antenna will be 10 feet from the building and 14. 5 inch ins diameter so it doesnt meet the obstruction definition under the order or are there any conditions regarding obstruction, i wanted you to have that mystery that verizon and extenet tried to resolve any esthetic conditions as it relates to this building and has tried to do that in this case and different from those poles that turned out to belong to pg e, it requires boxes and part of the approvals went through and went through the tenant of approval final determination and permit of the department as well as a protest hearing of february 22 of this year. We feel the application fully complies with all requirements, weve gone beyond and beyond to try to remove any kind of obstruction and the planning conditions dont include any obstruction of views or lighting and we ask that you follow the reck m dashing of the department of public works and approve the application. Thank you. Counselor . Yes . This also has an extension to the pole, doesnt it . Pg e is replacing the pole, so the pole will increase in height from 34 feet to 43. Pg e separately identified in reviewing this, what they said were conditions that didnt currently satisfy go95, i believe it is that the secondary power is too close to the existing light, so pg e in reviewing this pole decided to extend to modify, move the secondary power higher and in consequence increase the height of the pole by 9 feet. So, line ares also being raised, power lines . In relation to the light standard i believe, yes. And thats pg e and we f we have no control over that, they have the ability to replace that pole any time under their franchise, but dhas correct. Thank you. Thank you. And we can hear from the department. Good evening, commissioners, [inaudible] with public works, just to start off again, so per article 25, section 1513, public works may only deny Wireless Service facilities, the site permits for these Wireless Service facilities if evidence supports any one of the following findings harbinger the blic health determined the application complies with Public Health compliance standard, that the Planning Department incorrectly determine that the application meets applicable tier a or tier b compatibility standards, the application does not comply with any other requirement for obtaining a personal wireless facility site permit or it shows the applicant apply tos apply for a modification permit after the permit is issued, it will not comply with applicable xlieblt standard, none of these criteria were met so public works moved forward with the issuance of the permit so, the appellants main case was that this would impact the light and the personal views, so under public works codes section 1509b2, public works may not deny an application based on blocked light or personal views instead they may add conditions to the permit it would substantially block light or views into a residential window and as stated earlier before public works order, it does create a definition for substantial obstruction of view and is in that definition, it states that the mounting of equipment enclosures either 8 feet away fwr a window if attach today a top of the pole or attach today a side arm mount as measure today the nearest portion would typically not be expected to result in substantial impairment provided the diameter of equipment is not more than 20 inch, it is 14. 6 inches and the pole the equipment on the arm would be further than 6 feet away and so i can just give kind of a brief simulation or show a diagram demonstrating, so this is what the proposal would look like, the arm would extend the arm is 47 and 7 8 inches long extending away from the building towards jackson street in this case. And so we also ran this by the Planning Department and in exhibit e in the Planning Department letter, the Planning Department did consider all aspects of the installation and recommended approval of the permit with also the condition that this arm was placed it was originally proposed at about a 3 foot extension towards jock son and it was agreed they would go closer to four feet to try to mitigate the loss of light or views and im available for any questions. Just as a side note, if we were to uphold this permit, is this one of the installations that would be affected by what we spoke about in the previous case that it wouldnt be allowed to be installed until Everything Else was fixed . Yes, so public works per section 1517, public works does have to grant the permit holder adequate time to correct the notice of deficiency and thats 30 days, so if they dont complete it within that time limit, then public works can start imposing conditions to deny future applications. So, but if we uphold the permit, the permits been issued. Yes. This isnt is this an application or is this past the application point and has this been permitted and will be installed . If you uphold the permit, it will be permitted and installed. So, even if the other stuff is going on that we talked about before, this one will go forward anyway . Thats correct, in this case, it will be based on the dates of the issuance. And this box, is this box in is this the box na was permitted . Im sensing that its only because i heard that it was a pg e pole and you told us in the previous item that the box on the pg e poles specifically had been changed since they were permitted, so is this one of the boxes that was is this the box that was permitted originally or is this has this box been changed since the permit was issued . So, if i understand correctly, the box shown on their plans and currently on the simulations, this is qua would be permitted i think im not quite understanding. What i heard occurred and what is the underpinnings of all this other conversation that we had before was that permits were issued for specific boxes that also include pg e poles. And those boxes as it turned out were not going to be allowed by pg e because they have other standards for their poles. Can i interrupt for a second, youre asking, is this box fully compliant . Is this box the same box that was permitted or is this also not going is this box going to be a Different Box than was permitted . I see, so believe the other boxes are theyre all different, if im correct. If you can help me out. The notices of violation are [inaudible] Planning Department, the issue for the boxes na youre speaking of are on pg e steel poles, these are wooden poles so its not the same design. Er okay, thanks, thats what my point was. Any other questions for mr. Shaw . Alright, thank you. Thank you. Well take Public Comment on this item. Anyone who wishes to speak, please step forward. Do we offer planning no . Is there any questions for mr. San xhez . No, okay. Madam director. Two minutes for Public Comment, if there are multiple speakers, if you could line up, you can start, someone needs to go first. Hi, [inaudible] im speaking on the sites on the condition that theyre compliant, so i know that theres a lot of sort of drama about that right now, but i ask you to reject these appeals if these sites are compliant and to just really think about how a lot of social connections happen with these phones and a lot of safety issues, so many people dont have land lines anymore and when something comes up, when you need to talk and get a hold of someone, you need to make sure theres not an obsolete system. This is for future generations, for people that are live ining a society now where data demands are, theyre going through the roof and we really have to think about how were going to accommodate that. The idea that the light to a private residence is something that should be protected by the government or a committee is something thats really difficult to argue in a city, in a city where you need to have buildings, where you need to have infrastructure, where it needs to be dense so that people can even live here. I am also a housing advocate and i spend a lot of time talking to people about the views coming out of their living room windows and how valuable those are, but also how valuable and even more valuable it is to build a city that has places or people to live and thats a whole other crisis that i wont talk about here, but i ask that you approve the site and also continue your diligence in making sure theyre all compliant. I think thats important, once they are compliant and all through, all the holds, you need to make sure they are approved. Thank you. Nester speaker. Diego, i realize after rushing into the room all confused and speaking after a lobbyist, i should clarify my sbekt, im here from my own valysing, im a journalist in the air ya, i research a lot of secret litigation, im foregoing the ability to write about this and speak on my own behalf, i wont talk about cancer this time since it doesnt seem the appeal is a concern for life but the right to reserve any view of Natural Light from a permanent residence regarded from needed public infrastruck khufrment i think this board should approve this small cell antenna there because otherwise it would be setting a precedent that would be impossible to apply equitably, if the government is there to protect peoples views of Natural Light at any time of day from any perspective, then theoretically, any building that blocks anyones view should be lowered and nothing above anyones view should ever be built and obviously i dont think anybody in the San Francisco government would be capable of doing that except for people who would have the resources to do very resource costly appeal, so i trust that you guys know what to do. Thanks. Thank you, next speaker. [inaudible] citizen up here once again to reiterate my point from earlier. Cellular data usage is becoming more and more pertinent among people all over america but especially if larger cities, and larger more dense cities like San Francisco especially and especially for perhaps the younger generations which may not be as well represent ined this room now, but the sometimes incredibly poor service in this city is a very large issue for those who not only want to stay in contact with friends and family but also want to get work done on the go, many people work from their phones all around the city and so that all the people in sf, old or young, whether they work from their phones or for entertainment or a hobby need access to quality cellular data s frs. Tvs. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Okay, seeing none, then ms. Mccausland, you have three minutes of rebuttal if you have anything further as the appellant, if you have anything further to say. Yeah, my comment is, okay, i mean, so im one person and im complaining about im just saying im going to lose some light. Has there been a study done for the shadows to see exactly how much light im going to lose and does it matter that one person i mean, who cares if one person complains or whatever . I dont particularly i think we all matter and San Francisco is a place where ive been living for a long, long time, and i just you know, for the sake if we start thinking about, well, the good of everybody, you know, but i mean, i do think we have to take into consideration things like our city, is it clean, is there light, is it going to be a city that represents people or is it just going to be a city that big business will take over every aspect or somebody whos got more power than somebody else can just take that over, i mean, thats my reaction to it. I just feel some of the comments that were made, you know, for sake of progress, that somebody protesting about light getting into their apartment is like kind of to some people kind of stupid, you know, because, you know, progress is progress, but i mean, i think we have to balance that whole thing off and thats what im looking at, so thank you. Thank you. Mr. Albreton . Thank you, outside counsel for verizon, i know it sometimes thinks the large corporations are taking over San Francisco, but in this particular case, article 25 i think you know regulates the rightofway and there is no protection for public views nr the right of way. The code is written to protect public views but not private views and there is no such protection. The public views are protected through the review by the Planning Department that has to determine because this is a zoned protected district that theres no significant detraction fa the defining characteristics of this Zoning District so they look at public views of towers to determine if theres any impact. Private views are addressed in article 25 if a condition is added and voluntarily semite by the company that there not be any obstruction or view or light, the Planning Department didnt ask us to put that condition in, theres no protection under this prerment. Er private views, there is for public views, ver advise son wireless and extenet do take people into account with their view and is their windows and for that reason took an extra 68 months to create a custom extender that would push this antenna 10 feet away from the window, we cant solve every individual problem and providing this infrahave you beening khu, dpw in its exercise on its rights and putting the facility ins the rightofway has to Pay Attention to public views but not necessarily private views, so i wanted to clarify that one point. Lastly, just to clarify the other point about the confusion of poles, those pg e poles look just like San Francisco light standards, they have no electrical power or anything on them and thats the confusion, they were thought to be puc poles but turned out to be pg e poles, the amta pole that is we used which was the last site, we know those are mta poles but there was an honest confusion in the city of naoez poles that looked like standards that tuned out to be pg e instead of puc, with that, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Shaw . [inaudible] shaw, public work, i have no further comments, public works believes it did issue the permit in accordance with the current regulations and im available for any further questions. Weve heard many, many case and is you probably explained this to me before, but how does it determine when the bh the apparatus or the machinery is in a public view of a landmark or historical space like Golden Gate Bridge . In this instance, when you look at the pick khu, you evidently see that there are cable car tracks there and the cable car is a national and historic landmark, the only moving landmark in the country, i believe, right. Yes. So, how does the department make that determination . So, in our process, that gets deferred to planning and planning helps us with the determination and if they would like to speak to that, but then the order to set the criteria about the substantial obstruction of the view, so we did go off of that criteria as well in termser of the distance from the building and the size, the diameter of the actual facility. In terms of determining what is a view corridor, we do defer to the Planning Department and request for their assistance. Thank you. Yes. Would you like to hear from someone from planning . Oh, sure. Thank you, scott sanchez, Planning Department. There are a variety of things we would look at, one of the appeals we had on lombard, that appeal was the result aof a denial that we took on a location across columbus which we felt impaktded the view look up at lombard, we look to see if there has been a historic district, is there a landmark, note historic resources, certainly the cable cars are obviously a known historic resource, but having the fact that it is maybe its not obstructing the views of the tracks, with f we didnt feel that would be appropriate. If it was in another scenic vista impacting views of public parks, its but its the same for not only for how we look at these but also in section 101. 1 of the planning code, its something that we consider citywide for all projects, so and thats really looking at the impacts of the public vistas and in this case, i did not feel it had a negative impact. Staff had requested an additional setback from the building because we felt it was just a little bit too close and so it is sticking out a little bit more in the public right of way because of that, we felt that gave some adequate relief to that building and thats why its perhaps sitting obstructing more sorry to put you in the hot seat, we heard in previous cases its blocking a historic landmark or obstructing a historic landmark, how do you address a moving landmark, that would be the question, right. Yes, and i think we would have to look at, is it along a vista, looking up at the cable car tracks going up california, so i think that would be how we would address Something Like a cable car, is it impacting the vista looking up at california would be my best answer perhaps you could refresh our memories on what the department did on the clarification of obstruction of light and view, clarification that occurred earlier this year. I will leave it to our wireless specialist. [inaudible] Planning Department, could you repeat your question again, i didnt understand. I believe the Planning Department issued some further definition or clarification on the light blockage or obstructions of views. Yeah. When we look at these wireless facility, we not only take account what pole theyre in but any relocation of poles so last week, you saw a case before you where the initial propose salt was not supported and it was moved on to another pole because of the scenic view of lombard street so, theres been instances like that where we take the overall massing of the pole, the equipment and the type of pole it is and what kind of technology or design we preapproved and try to determine what would be least intrusive, of course, were limited on how much we can ask for based on fcc standards but we can, which is why when modifications are done to the design, we take it seriously that were notified prior. Thank you. Thank, commissioners, the matter is submitted. Ill go. You know, its very difficult in these cases because if it was me and i had a situation like ms. Mccausland, i would be upset too or deeply concerned that there was something being constructed in front of my window. And we on this board are sensitive to that i think unless anybody wants to disagree. The issue that we have here is that were here to fulfill what is the law and what is legislation, theres legislation article 25 and it was stated by the permit holders counsel, it was reaffirmed by planning and there really arent any view corridors that are ob obstructed here. It doesnt impact the overall feeling of neighborhood, so in fact it seems to be in compliance with article 25 and therefore it would be my feeling that the permit holder has every right to for this installation. And i would agree with my youre going should be shocked, arent you, with my fellow commissioner, i would like to say to the appellant, you know, it does matter to us, it matters to me and your concerns about your light and your enjoyment of your place is not trivial and unfortunately sometimes in a city as dense as San Francisco, the individuals rights give way sometimes to the rights of others, but theres always a tradeoff, but make no mistake with respect to the board and myself, that your concerns are not pr if yal and you should not be made to feel that they were. I would approach this similarly to my response to commissioner swig earlier, but whether i felt the permit holder should resolve all of their issues before theyre allowed any further [inaudible] permits and i would continue with that approach in this instance. In this particular instance, i feel that extenet or the permit holder went above and beyond, i do like the design that they did in comparison to some of the other ones ive seen. It seems this is has gone on for a long time. I do also agree with my fellow commissioner in regards to consistency but on this particular pole, i would agree with im going to the left, so who would like to make a motion. So, my motion is to not deny the appeal, uphold the permit on the basis that it was issued properly. Okay, thank you. We have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. On that motion, vicepresident fung . No. Commissioner lazarus . Aye. President honda . Aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. So, that motion does carry with a vote of 41, the permit is upheld. We will move to item number 6 xhs a rehearing request, project location is long the van ness avenue corridor, the board received a letter from daoe yan delbridge requesting a rehearing of appeal number 16057 delbridge versus sfpwbuf, they voted 311, commissioner swig absent to up hold the permit, it is the project is the removal of 86 trees in the median and four street trees with replacement of 210 median trees and commissioner swig ma reviewed the paip and he iser seen the video so shes available to participate torrent and we can start with ms. Delbridge who has three minutes to present her request to the board. Good evening, commissioners, and im daoe deanne delbridge, i want to present you with four new facts which are the reasons, the most Important Reasons i feel for a rehearing and all of these facts are in the brief and more but i just wanted to highlight these. Okay, because a decision to give marijuana patients two minutes instead of one at the last meeting when there were more than 100 wait tog speak meant we lost over half our supporters with facts to state, plus the News Coverage that would have better informed the public of whats going on. None of them could stay to give their comments after midnight as we were forced to do. This constitutes a manifest in justice in my opinion. New fact number 2, in june, the sfmta removed almost half the bus stops on van ness avenue, the resulting increased bus speed virtually eliminates the need to destroy all the median trees. New fact number 3, the Draft Environmental Impact report which was circulated by the sfmta for Public Comment did not include the alternative that was ultimately chosen to run the brt down the center of van ness instead of curb side and remove all the trees. That alternative combined element from the draft eir which deprive ted public from the opportunity of comment, the process was flawed. A june 21 which was the day before our hearing, court ruling ukiy citizens for safety versus versus the city of ukia supports our claim that we need a subsequent eir issued by the sf m,z ta, the failure to address many cqa issues was triggered by the citys failure to choose an alternative with a less severe impact. The subsequent eir is needed to adequately measure, analyze and mitigate the full destructive impact of this project and the final new fact, the city must prove that they have the money for this project at least before they cut down all the trees as they said they were doing in october. They should not because they will not know how much money they might receive from the November Ballot measure that has yet to be approved. They should not get approval if they dont have the 313 Million Dollars in funds. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we can hear from the permit holder now. Good evening, commissioners, thank, president honda and commissioners, im bob mace si with the county Transportation Authority on behalf of the van ness project, we request the board deny of the rehearing Tree Planting that was upheld before this board last month, contrary to appellants brief, it was not based on any new facts but relies on factual and legal errors, the appellant raises 7 is use on their brief, number one, incorrectly stating additional sidewalk trees will be removed and replaced as part of this permit, only four sidewalk tree ares included in this permit and no further tree replacements are required fwr the van ness project, any further tree replacements mrb on a separate decision and the assessment of tree conditions, its not information that the public works is considering these separate replacements as this information was include ined the dpw notices, discussed in the appeal briefings and the appeal hearing last month. The appellant incorrectly stated the projects preferred alternative did not receive public review. The public review was described in detail including several public hearings on the locally preferred alternative. The time of the appeal decision to approve the project with the locally preferred alternative has passed. Number 3, the appellant made various replacements that are not new such as the time of replacement term tos reach maturity or are incorrect. Number 4, the appellant statement about bus stop changes on van ness are irrelevant to the tree permit. The bus stop changes are an integral part of the approved project, not a stand alone change. Number 5, the appellant misinterprets a recent legal case to argue the project needs additional environmental review. The projects use of an addendum is consistent with explicit ceqa guidelines on what type of review is required in this instance, this instance is very different from the fact ins the case cited by the appellant and it is not relevant. The appellant misunderstands the citys clarification that it falls under permit code 806 and not 810, the earl yapper appeal briefs address thirsted and the appellant had the opportunity to address it at the time. The appeal hearing was conducted improperly, it was conducted in accordance with all the rules of the board. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Buck, do you care to speak on this . Good evening, chris buck with San Francisco Public Works Bureau urban forestry. I reviewed bob macys statement representing sfcta and would concur with all of his statements that was just presented to you. This original tree hearing was held on august 24th of last year, about 11 months ago, it followed our established process and all of our steps were adhered to. Therell really no information that wasnt considered at the previous hearing. Kate mccarthy, the Public Information officer and other contacts at public work, shes with sfmta, several folks at public work, landscape architecture, bureau of urban forestry provided information over the course of nearly a year to the public about the project. It even included several requests for information including all files and emails. So, again, we believe the process was thorough and robust as is typical of our process and we believe that theres really no new information to consider at this point. Thank you. Mr. Buck, sort of an aside question, i dont recall in all the documentation that we saw related to the replanting plan and whether its sequenced serially as the hard skaip and infrastructure is completed and not to wait then until everything is then before you come in and plant at one time . So, i believe i understand the question is about the planting plan and how would that happen, would it happen serially and i would probably have bob mace si or another project come up and speak to that. Greetings, commissioners, my name is peter [inaudible], iem the sfmta project manager on the van ness Improvement Project. The part of the reason that the trees have to come down early in the project is because the space is needed, its the Improvement Project is a major infrastructure project, were not only rebuilding bus Rapid Transit system but rebuilding all the watt and her sewer along van ness after. We need Additional Space to route traffic and keep van ness open while this work is going on, so essentially, since were rebuilding the center of the street anyway, the plan is to take down the existing median and put down temporary roadways so that the infrastructure work can go on on either side to have street to accelerate the construction and minimize impacts. As soon as that utility work is done, we will move out of the scented of the street and build a new median and bus route anyways but that will be the latter third of the project. There is no contractor in town that could build the entire thing at one time. Theyre going to work on it in sections and youre going to demolish everything at once and then the work will go on in sections but essentially the initial phase of the project will start well, the and the initial phase of the project would start at the project and move down the corridor dwards the other. We will be working with the neighborhoods and the businesses and other organizations along the van ness corridor to schedule the work, so to minimize the impact. For example, we dont want to do a lot of construction in front of Symphony Hall during the opening of the symphony season, so that work will be scheduled to minimize its conflict with the symphony, the hospital project is going on also, so were going to be working with them to schedule our work to minimize impact to that area as we proceed, but at a high level, yes, were going to have two Main Construction headways starting at one part of the corridor, starting in the north of the core dar and moving south and starting in the middle of the core dar and moving south. We did consider the idea of building of trying to build the whole median but the difficulty again is theres going to be utility work going on on either side of the street for the first couple of years of the project and we really need the space to move trafficker in and out. The contractors are going to come through the first sub coming through trenching followed by the sewer contractor running the sewer lines followed by the water contractor running the water lines, then a paving contractor will come in and pave that, that way we can begin moving traffic back to the outside but only then can we start rebuilding the middle of the lane or the middle of the roadway. We did at one point look at the idea of doing complete construction on a couple of blocks at a time, we went into a lot of difficulty widths traffic weaving in and out as we try to maneuver from the sent r of the street back to the outside back to the center demandbacker paneling where the construction is going on, so for the sake of speed and safety, we decided we would isolate sections of the road larger sections of the corridor for construction and put the traffic out of the way of conflict for the construction areas. I hope youre more successful than the central subway. So do i. Our term is up before they get to city hall . [laughter]. Okay, we can take Public Comment. Would anyone like to speak on this item, please step forward. And if you could line up on that side of the room, that would be helpful, those of you who are waiting to speak. Okay, were going the give three minutes to each speaker because of what happened with the late hearing the last time. Correct. Okay, good evening, members of the board of appeal, my name is robert bardel, i was here and testified at the last one, i should have a button saying i was there, and i have to say for the late hour, the appellants turned out an awful lot of people, it was 22, and that includes the bald eagle man, the defendant of the permit, we just had three, and i really believed that their arguments were given a fair hearing by the board of appeals and they dont have any reason to say that more like unconvincing arguments are going to be made more convincing by repetition, i dont think thats the case and i think you decided rightly and we should move forward with this, so do not support a rehearing. Thank you very much. Thank you, next speaker, please. Don savoy, i also was at the last hearing but i had to leave, so i was prevented from testifying for the project, so i can say the same thing that was said by the other side, im here to support the project, im looking forward to at least it moving forward sometime in my lifetime, its been a long time in the works, its been many hearings, many discussion, the public noticing has been going on for at least four years that i can be aware of, so the last minute nitpicking over some things that have been discussed over and over again is getting to be a little frustrating for all of us who are work on the project. Im on the Community Advisory committee on that project and i just think that the hearing that happened, you stayed up until 1 a. M. To make sure that you came up with a decision and i dont think theres any reason to question the decision you made, so thank you. Er thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, everyone, im sue see, im a resident of the neighborhood near the van ness corridor, im here just to speak in favor of the van ness brt project and by extension for the removal of the trees, i think its essential to get the work done in a timely manner and im excites about the new f new tree that is are going to be brought in, more than twofold are going to be brought in and well have a cohesive identity to the corridor that im excited about, so i hope you will support this project and reject the appeal, thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Im peter strous from the San Francisco transit riders, yes, we were hire until all hours of the morning but as someone else said, there were dozens of people who also stayed the course for that and i think youve heard all the material discussions on this. I dont think anything new has been introduced and i really think its time to get on with this and i urge you to and as other speakers have, i urge you to deny the appeal, thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Thank you, im mary miles, im an attorney for coalition for etiquette and view, i have commented on this project several times now. I do ceqa, nepa and other land use law, i do that every day and id like to think i know what im talking about. Ive been to scores of hearings and i have never ever seen a hearing like the june 22 hearing before this board. I thought it was a appalling, the way the appellant was treated. I thought this board did not give process in any sense of the term as i understand it and i think it was a manifest in justice just the way the hearing was conducted. I dont know how mr. Strous and the others who have support and he iser work with mta on this project. I have no idea how they know what could have been said by the people who werent able to stay until after midnight and i dont know how you can surmise what might have been said by them either. I think you need to conduct a rehearing on this to hopefully allow those people to come here and speak before this board. Its your job to hear them. Its the public right to be heard, to have the opportunity to be heard. That is manifest and justice, you have many new issues that werent cover ined this request for rehearing. I strongly urge you to grant the rehearing. I heard several speakers claim that there were no new items. The fantastic announcement that another 106 trees would be cut along the sidewalks is news, thats new information. All the items that ms. Delbridge enumerated, that was all new information. As far as your ceqa issues, you didnt cover them at all at the june 22 hearing. You have issues, serious issues under ceqa that would cause all kinds of problems for you in a court. One of the problems i had there and continue to have is you allow city seemingly to have a parade of speakers that went on for an hour at least while everybody else had to wait for their one minute. Really, you need to have a rehearing on this. I think it was a travesty. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. Ill start. So, after reviewing the brief and participating in that particular hearing which went to 1 40 i believe, you know, we do apologize that people have other plans, they have to go home, but all cases before us, they all have an equal right to speak as being part of the public. Yesterday, me and several other of my fellow commissioners had a matter before the board of supervisors. I waited over three and a half hours, it was going to be ten hours before i got heard. That was my option whether i wanted to stay or whether i wanted to leave. It was important to me but i left. I did have the opportunity to speak but it was going to be at 9 30 in the evening. I made that conscious decision of whether i was going to wait there for nine hours or not. I believed that to have a rehearing, it would be due to manifest and just, i dont see it here, i think that manifest and just is a high bar, i believe the information that was provided in this brief has been presented and vetted properly at the last hearing and i would not support a rehearing. Im in agreement. I havent heard anything new. So, that would be my motion to deny the rehearing . On the motion from the president to deny the rehearing request, vicepresident fung . Aye. Commissioner lazarus . Aye. Commissioner wilson . No. Commissioner swig . Aye. That motion carries with a vote of 41 and no rehearing request will be granted. Next item is item number 7, appeal number 16102, yemil rivera emmy versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forestry, 371 silver avenue, appealing the denial on may 9, 2016 of a tree removal permit, remove one privately maintained street tree and replacement of one tree adjacent to the subject property. And we will start with the appellant, you have 7 minutes. Erbacker im here again because ive been denied the removal of a tree, it was a city maintained tree which became it was given to the Property Owner, now, and first of all, i think thats wrong. It was supposed to be a city maintained tree, they never really maintained it. About six years ago, this same tree, the roots broke through my main drain and thank god it was city maintained because it was over 10 thousand dollars. I got reimbursed, but this is going to happen again. I provided some pictures where the roots are already raising the sidewalk and thats how it started the last time, and i really cannot afford this to happen again, so i mean, im asking that i first started asking they take the tree back and they said no, so my next option was, okay, i need to remove this tree. The other problem with this tree is that the branches, they are weak, it looks like a sick tree, and whenever theres high winds, branches break, they fall on a car, they recently fell the last time we had high winds, they fell on my aunts car, it broke the little side window, i replaced it, no big deal, but it could fall on a person. What am i going to do, you know. I need this tree to be removed so im asking to please allow me to remove this tree or if dpw claims that its so healthy, why dont they take it back, you know, that way they can be happy and i can be happy. This is not a healthy tree. It was never healthy and its just wrong just because they say, we dont have money to maintain it, were going to dump it on the Property Owner, thats just wrong, thats trampling over our rights, they should have thought about a better way to deal with this, its not right. I dont have the finances to maintain a tree, this needs to be pruned constantly. When it was city maintained, i used to call. Sometimes they would come and prune it, sometimes they wouldnt, so its really unfair for them to expect Property Owners when we have so much expenses as it is, property taxes, if anything goes wrong with the house, its on us, and now a tree that wasnt my tree, it was a city maintained tree, so im asking that you please allow me to remove it and if not, take it back. I dont want this tree, and another thing, it said here remove one privately maintained street tree with replacement of one tree, and i never requested a replacement tree. I dont want a tree, i dont want anything that deals with maintaining. I have enough on my plate, i cannot i cannot take upon this, so im asking to please reconsider this. Thank you. Are you finished . So, if they take it back, youre okay with that . I would be fine if they take it back, they can maintain it, but like i said, the trees already raising the sidewalk and thats going to fall on to me and thats why im asking the reason why commissioner fung said that, partly why we were at the board of supervisors for so many hours is the 11 supervisors passed a resolution to go on the ballot that the city take back all the trees back and the only condition theyre dealing with is the funding on how thats going to accomplish. Oh, i was not aware of that. It was just yesterday. Oh, okay, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Buck . Were you there yesterday, mr. Buck . Good evening, i was watching yesterdays hearing from my office on sf gov tv and i got chills when supervisor wiener asked all the supers to stand in favor and they fanned back and literally the entire gallery stood, so the board of supervisors showing some great leadership weve been waiting for for some decades, but again just to step back, my name is buck, im the urban forester, bureau of urban forestry, i value the feedback from the appellant regarding the tree maintenance concerns she has adjacent to her property and ill provide some general Background Information and well kind of come back to some of that latest developments, because i think nas germane in this case, so there are two trees adjacent to the property that were the responsibility for public works to maintain, tree number 2, the tree on the left was transferred to the Property Owner last year in august. If i could have overhead. So, the subject tree were talking about this evening is here on the left. These are new Zealand Christmas trees and they are evergreen specie and is weve had similar cases before us at your appeals board here with sidewalk damage caused by this species. Both trees were planted with friends of the urban forest on june 25, 1994, they would do so with a Property Owners permission, they would water the trees for the first three year and is would revert to be maintained by public works because we always maintained strobes along silver avenue, i looked at how did the two trees get on this site, that may have been nrant planted with a previous Property Owner, i dont know, regarding the condition of the tree, the vigor is good, the overall tree health is good. Tree number 1 has not been transfer today the Property Owner because we have outstanding sidewalk repairs to be made. On tree number 1, there are a few examples of where large limbs have broken off that tree. I didnt see anything obvious with the subject tree in terms of history of branch failure. This is a slight lean to the tree, generally the tree has adequate clearance away from the building overhead, theres an image from one angle and another image from a different vantage point. Regarding the sidewalk damage, there is starting to be a new round of sidewalk damage caused by the roots of the tree in this area. A year ago when we initiated the transfer of the tree, na damage was not present so its something that has been occurring since transfer of just a year ago. Related to the sewer issues in this image, here is the sewer cleanout, the sewer lateral. The sewer issue is complicated. Basically what we say is that tree roots dont damage sewers but they make existing damage much worse. It typically takes the sewer line to be leaking or have some crack or defect with it for it to be leaking for tree roots to exacerbate the situation, so one important thing to point out, even if were able to maintain all of the trees in this city, that will not include liability for sewer repair. It would include tree pruning, major maintenance prune trimming sidewalk repair, were one of the few cities in the country who are rebim ushering people for sewer related damages, so a few years ago, public works stopped that practice. When a sewer line has been upgraded, we hope it will last a long time, thats one bit of encouraging news to offer the Property Owner, if that upgrade was made six years ago and ten thousand dollars was reimbursed by the city, weve had hundreds of Property Owners approaching us to look for the same treaask that the board uphold the directors denial of the permit to remove the tree and we offer up to the Property Owner that we really hope this initiative would pass. It would be a really exciting turn of events for San Franciscos urban forest and i keep telling people all year, i know theres a Huge National election going on, but its the year of the tree in San Francisco and yesterdays vote was a huge step towards that. Thank you. As long as they can figure out where the money comes from, i think thats going to be the problem. Mr. Buck, are you finished sir . Yes. Looking at the pictures, this tree doesnt look that healthy, usually when you say the tree looks good, are we looking at the same pictures because it looks like its split, it looks like you can see where failed limbs have come off. I mean, you look at the base, i mean, normally when you say a tree looks pretty good, im in agreement, but this tree doesnt look very good. Thank you, you know, i think the tree looks very good, so the structure of the tree, the one if were going to which we like to do, split hairs over tree struck khu, it has codominant stems so it has two codominant stems, but its more of a ushape, so the crotch or branching structure iss more of a u shape, when we have a v shape, we have the two stems physically groining apart from each other, thats where we see failures, codominant are not good, [inaudible] they are planted a little close together, theyre only 12 feet on center, and if we were to plant these trees today, we would want at least 20 feet on center with the species. However, with the larger tree, tree number 1, if in tree is approved for removal, we really wouldnt replant this tree because its very close to the existing tree, and its going to be out shaded, so at the doesntbacker current moment, we have two trees planted on the same day, they coexist together, theres a slight lean, but these trees will fill out over time and again just to reiterate, i think the trees look very healthy. Were talking about the tree on the left, arent we . The tree on the left. You said that you saw some evidence of branches coming off. Do you have any concerns about that . Not really. Tree number 1, the tree thats not the subject of the hearing this evening that is currently maintained by public works, that tree has lost a couple of large branch, its not clear if that i think one of them could have been caused by a lack of automobile clearance, it could have been struck by a truck and sometimes that forces a limb off. The other one was a little bit more towards the interior, likely not caused by a truck, the species is pretty well behavior when it comes to limb structure and branch failures. And you said that if this were done today, they would not be that close together, right . They would not, and i do want to acknowledge that. The trees i was wondering, why 12 feet, right, why no neighbors on either side have any trees and then you have a neighbor who has two trees, and thats the way the urban forest has been for years, its sort of lack of equity and distribution. Its very possible that the owner was very excited when they planted these trees to frame and frank blank the entrance of the home, theres another neighbor that would convince us to get another tree planted to match the location of where the other one was, these are things that were dealing with all the time, people want to remove traoes all the time for a number of different reasons. Do you have any idea o on the sewer repair, what was done, did they replace it with cast iron . I dont know the specifics of the sewer repair, but if it was involving the city, its either cast iron or if they have to go in between buildings, they might do the sleeveless liner to avoid excavating near the foundation. My sense though, the repair probably just went down into the that lower area, i dont know if thats a driveway, its not a driveway but theres a slope downwards, so my sense is that it was likely cast iron. And probably it was terracotta prior and the Building Construction looks like early 1900s. So, youre saying it was replacement, not necessarily just a repair job . Typically it would be replaced entirely. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay, seeing no Public Comment, then we have rebuttal from the appellant, if you have anything further to say, you have three additional minutes. One thing he mentioned about there being two trees. I believe i was very young, but i remember it was the city offer, they were planting trees, and i remember somebody coming and talking to my aunt about planting two trees so it wasnt her request at all. It was done by dpw, someone from the city that was offering them because she didnt know anything about it. Thats the one thing i remember about it, but she never requested it, they asked if she would like to get them plant and had she said yes, but she never said she wanted two, they offered them and thats about it. So, you believe they near the property since the trees were put in . I live there, thats where i grew up. The plumbing, that was by your plumber and you requested a rebim busmen from the city . Yes, it was a plumber, when it broke about six years ago, i was no longer living there. So, you dont know the circumstances of what it was replaced by . No, that i do not know but he did go down into that lower area. Okay, thank you. Ms. , do you understand wla the proposed ordinance is . Come back to the microphone if you would, what mr. Buck stated was that the proposed Ballot Initiative which would then create a new law is that dpw will take back the maintenance and care of the trees, and if theres any damage to the sidewalk, it would be their responsibility, but any damage to a sewer line is not under the citys what if its caused again by the tree roots because from the last time, the one thing i remember is there was a camera and you could clearly see that tree roots understood, i know thats the process they go through. The question im raising to you is that do you still want to request the demolition of this tree if you knew that theres a chance the city may take over maintenance but they would not take care of future sewer damage . If they would my concern is that i hope they can figure out where the moneys going to come from and what if something happens before then . That would be my concern, you know. And i understand, but the problem is that the roots, whenever the sidewalk starts raising, the roots are growing, im just concerned. They would take care of any damage to the sidewalk is what i heard from buf, and youre right, i mean, theres a question of whether its goinbacker going to be funded or not or if people will pass it. Yes. I mean, it would be really hard for me financially if it happens again, i mean, i would prefer to get the tree removed. Its not a healthy tree honestly. How about if we continue this until after the election in november . If it becomes a city maintained tree and i dont know if they can figure out, if they have the technology to figure out ways to prevent the roots from growing, if theres something they can do about it, i dont know, i just want to prevent my main drain from getting, you know, broken again. Thats the other thing. Well, if they put in cast iron, you have a much better chance of it lasting for a long time. Im not sure what they put in to be honest with you. Okay. Mr. Buck, anything further . Thank you, commissioners, chris buck with public works, bureau of urban forestry. I do believe that it would be likely cast iron that gets installed and in termser of the process, we used to work close ri with the City Attorneys Office in the claims department, we would go out and confirm, physically go out, look at the tree, look at where their sewer line is, review the scoping footage in their camera to say this is the only tree around, its ours to maintain, and then the sewer line going directly into the home and not between the homes leads me to believe that it could only be cast iron, you could only get the exemption of that liner when its between homes and to excavate near a neighbors location. We are hopeful and optimistic that the initiative would be its definitely got to be earmarked funding. The other proposal was for a parcel tax and it was trending at about 70 of support for that, so this would be instead of a twothirds majority, it would be a not twothirds, it would be a simple majority and it would be money that comes from the general fund which still has to be identified, but we are of course once that ballot gets placed on the election, we cant advocate for it, but at this point, we can provide information about whats at stake, and in terms of long term maintenance of the tree, if we can do overhead, i did find in our archives, we have a photo drive, there was a pruning request, we have pruned the tree and repaired the sidewalk at the site throughout the year, there was a comment earlier sometimes we come out and prune, sometimes we dont, because sometimes we come out and we find we dont need to prune so we dont send the tree crew out there, that is consistent with how we inspect and evaluate trees so we can continue to evaluate our tree number 1. This photo was taken in 2005, the request at that time, the photo is labeled pruning request, so in 2005, we went out, there is a pruning request for the trees but the trees dont require pruning so we do keep a lot of information about each tree in our database and one of the trees is currently our liability, the second tree is not, we hope both trees will become our liability in the near future. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Are we continuing . I wouldnt mind continuing, if it came to a vote, i would allow the tree and spacing 12 feet apart, its a lot of tree for that small spacing personally. You know, its not a very long time and perhaps continue it to when . We will continue it until sometime after november 8th. There is a meeting on the 9th, the 16th of november and then december 7th. Lets go further, i dont think they indicated na the initial budget was somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 million which is not a small amount, so i would continue this to december 7th but i would say to the appellant that, you know, in these limited number of months, its not likely to be anything thats going to happen and perhaps you can rethink what she would like to be done following either passage or nonpassage of the initiative. Okay, so thats a motion from the vicepresident to continue the appeal to december 7, 2016, and i believe thats to await the outcome of the related ballot measure. Right. Okay, on that motion, commissioner lazarus . Aye. President honda . Aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. Commissioner swig . Aye. That motion does carry and this item is continued to december 7th. The next item on the calendar is item number 9, weve already heard item 8, so item 9 is appeal can we take a two minute break. Okay, were going to take welcome back to the july 27, 2016 meeting to have scan fra ns board of appeals, we are on item number 9, appeal number 16084, Brandon Eberhart versus department ofing inspection, 1619a laguna street, appeal thing issuance on april 25, 2016 to mariya semika toe va of an al ration permit. We will salter with the appellant. You have 7 minutes to present your case. Good evening, members of the board, my names sal va tor him can know, i represent the appellant, Brandon Eberhart, hes been a residential tenant at the property since december 1, 2015. On april 25th, a permit was applied for and its on the overhead. To remove Kitchen Cabinets and a sink. The permit is defective on its face because on 7a, it lists the current use as commercial, and page 2 of that permit indicates to me that it wasnt reviewed by planning, and my understanding is if you want to remove items from an inlaw unit or unpermitted residential unit, it should be reviewed by planning, and this was not. Mr. Eberhart rented the unit partially furnished, had a bed in it. It was rented to him residentially. We have a copy of the first page of the residential lease and up at the top, it shows residential month to month, it was an initial six month term and then month to month after that. After the permit well, before i talk about alright, so at the top there, it shows residential lease, thats the lease he signed in december, 2015 and moved in residentially. Heres a layout of the unit. It shows the bathroom, the kitchen, the living area and the entryway. I also have some photos of how its currently how it looks currently. Theres the kitchen, this item here is the refrigerator, theres a microwave on top, so heres the living room area or excuse me, bedroom area, theres the bed here. Mr. Eberhart does not work in this unit, doesnt do any business there, he just lives there. Heres the bathroom. Theres a sink and a mirror. Heres another photograph of the bathroom, theres the toilet. Shortly after the permit was applied for, he received a 30 day notice for termination of tenancy. Now, in order to get one of these notices, you have to apply under the rent ordinance to demolish a residential unit. Here the permit is to demolish cabinets or to remove cabinets and a sink in a commercial unit, not cek for this type of notice. I believe that the landlord is using an improper permit application to seek to evict a residential tenant. I would like mr. Eberhart to say a few words to the board now. Hello, thank you for hearing this case. Everything sal said is pretty much the truth on my end, i moved in december 1 and ive been there since then. I use it residentially, i knew the previous tenant which is how i found out about it, he was using it residentially, so yeah, i just want to keep staying there as a resident, i work in Mountain View so i have an office 95, i dont paint or do anything in the unit for business, yeah. Any questions . Your six month lease is up . Yes, its up and its supposed to convert to month to month according to the lease i signed. Okay, what is your current monthly rental price . 2600. Thank you. My name is bob nelpi and i have been work witching the tenant and mr. Sal. The unit, its a residential unit, it aos got a kitchen, a full bath, an electric stove sxits partially furnished and theres only one means in and out of the unit and its in nice shape. They have a Circuit Breaker that serves other areas of the building but basically it is a residential unit. Thank you. Excuse me, i didnt notice a window. Is there a window . There is a window in the front and its not openable. Thanks. Okay, we can hear from the permit holder. Good evening, thank you, board, edward singer appearing for the permit holder. Let me begin by assuring the board that there was no deception of the permit holder in applying for this permit, she was candid with the department of Building Inspections in regards to mr. Eberhart wauz tenant when she applied for the permit. Perhaps a brief history of her brief ownership to the building, my client bought the building in december of 2014, the building is a former church in japan town which was legally converted into two uniters, the top one is a legal residential and the bottom port is a commercial unit, when she first bought the unit, she had a vision of legalizing this unit and went down to various governmental agencies, talked to them about it and was told she could not legally convert it. And downstairs theres two kind of separate office space and is the space that mr. Eberhart currently resides is just one of those two spaces so resign today the fact she was going to have to use this as a commercial space, she made plans in the future to open like a Jewelry Store in the space mr. Eberharts in and use the backspaces as an office space. Yes, and in order to earn some income between the time is that tha she opened up this retail use, she did rent it to not only mr. Eberhart but a person before that. She put the kitchenette in there herself and she was wrong in doing it, at the time she entered into the lease with mr. Eberhart, she made him aware of the fact she intended to change the to take the kitchenette out, ask that he leave and she use this portion of the space as a commercial space again, and that fact is why the lease is exactly for six months because she intended to use this commercial use half of the six months, so now moving forward, the permit holder went down to department of Building Inspections because mr. Eberhart made it clear he was not going to leave to get the permit necessary to remove the kitchenette and convert it back to the legal commercial use. When she went down there, she explained to everybody exactly what she was doing, why she was going it, she spent a week talking to various people at the department of Building Inspections including and meeting with patrick rear don and the issue came up, does this require some conditional authorization use, of course it was that threshold determination that that is not required where the department of Building Inspections determines that is not theres no feasible path to legalization, they said there was no feasible path to legalization, therefore, theres no conditional use exploration required and the specific reason they gave is that theres 0 evidence this has ever been used as a residential unit prior to december 1, 2013. I think that was the basis of the decision that she did not have to explore the conditional use and that was the basis of the condition that the permit was issued. Thats our understanding, the history of how we got here today. Im hoping the department of Building Inspections is here and they can verify that was the process that was followed and i would ask that you uphold the permit. Thank you. We can hear from the departments, mr. Curin. Good evening, bernie curin, department of building inspection. Yes, it appears that this at some point was converted to a residential unit without the benefit of permitting. That being said, there is a mandate now that even illegal units cannot be removed per the Mayors Office without going through planning first, and i think the way this was represented to the Building Department at the onset created some confusion so it was not routed through planning, so its my opinion that this permit should be revoked. Do you have any questions . Mr. Curin, is this by definition a residential unit . If it was rented out in conformance with all of your codes . We havent been in the unit, just the fact they have a nonoperable window might constitute some flaws in the habitability of it, but that being said, per the mayors statute, even if its an illegally converted united, it cannot be pulled off the rent rules unless it goes through planning. Illegally converted or illegally used . This was a commercial space, it didnt have a full kitchen and all of that before based on prior plans. So, at some point, it was converted without the benefit of permitting. And unfortunately, legislation changed in 2014 and now recently three months ago, so by the owner doing that, they put themselves ins jeopardy. They put themselves in jeopardy, you may have gotten away from it before but nowadays you cant convert something illegally sa say im tired of renting it out and convert it back. Interesting what planning has to say. Anything else . Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you, scott sanchez, Planning Department, i concur with the findings of senior building inspector curin, the permit was inappropriately issued if it was not [inaudible] and it does seem to be the the intend of the Property Owner to no longer have this be a dwelling unit as amended on april 10th of this year, removal of an unauthorized unit does require conditional use authorization and the definition of unauthorized unit is fairly broad and would capture this, it means theres one or many more rooms within a building which is not used with the benefit of a Building Permit independent from residential units on the same property independent means the space has independent access that does not require entering a residential unit on the property and there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. This does appear to meet those thresholds, they would require a conditional use authorization to remove there are processes as part of this where we would we view it, if it is impossible to legalize, thats something that is considered and they would not be subject to the process, but under the planning code, certainly there is a path forward. This is a neighborhood commercial district. Theres one other dwelling unit in the building, i dont see any restrictions that would immediately preclude someone from legalizing this dwelling unit under the planning code, they may need to seek a variance from open space requirements, but under the unit legalization provisions which were enacted in 2014, we need to review that to see if theyre eligible for that, that may allow them some additional exceptions from those requirements but certainly it does appear that this was improperly approved and issued. There were only a few other permits on this property the most recent one being in 2009 relate tog the retail space did not show cooking facilities on that level, the permit they sought this time retained those cooking facilities but didnt legalize it in any way, so theres just i think outstanding issues here that needed to be addressed, a proper permit needs to be sought to either legalize the dwelling unit or seek to go through the process to remove the unauthorized dwelling unit and thats all. I have a question. Go ahead. So, one, the chiu legislation that passed in october, 2014 for the potential legalization of units was a start, correct . Yes. And then the new legislation that was recently passed, supervisor avalos added a condition that if there is a habitable space that someones in, your ear mandated to legalize, now, is that subject to chius same meaning that you have to have a lease one year prior or is this all new thing . Its different. So, under supervisor chius ordinance, that gave a path for units to legalize. Subsequent to that, we were seeing people come in to legalize units but were seeing people remove illegal units and this board was one of the leading factors in ultimately legislation that requires notification for a removal of an illegal unit that became effective earlier this year. Subsequent to that, theres now a requirement where you cant just remove an unauthorized unit, you have to go through the process to legalize it firstser its trying to compel people to legalize first before they remove an illegal unit. T second one is if this is now deemed legal residential, does the Property Owner abandon the usage for the commercial space and is it going to require a change of usage to get it back to commercial space . To go back to a commercial space, they would need to go through the conditional use process to remove the unauthorized unit to restore the ground floor commercial use and that could be one of their arguments to the Planning Commission, its at heart a ground floor commercial use and not appropriate to have as residential, that could be part of their proposal but they would need to get that authorization to revert it back to commercial, and it promotes ground floor retail uses, so that wouldnt be as much of an issue as the fact of removing the unauthorized unit at this point. O blg, thank you. What about the underlying planning constraint, densitywise . I dont believe density would be an issue in this case given that theres only one other dwelling unit on the property but that is all part of tlas why we need to review the permit too, thats why we need to review a permit to remove an illegal unit to make that determination whether or not theres a path to legalization. Does ncd allow residential to ground floor . Yes, yes. I mean, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then we have rebuttal for the appellant, if you have anything further, three minutes. Thank you very much, i have one point of clarification, mr. Singer represented that my client was told by the landlord that the lease was 6 mothers because at the end of the 6 mother period, she was going to do Something Else with the property whether that discussion happened or not is irrelevant because in San Francisco, any residential use thats under the jurisdiction of the rent board will not allow a tenancy to expire at the end of the term, it becomes perpetual month to month until the tenant decides to leave or until the tenant breeches the lease, neither of those two things happened here so that discussion whether it happened or not is irrelevant. Any questions for me . Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Singer, you have three minutes of rebuttal. Just to speak to what he said, there was no discussion as the unit being converted back to commercial after 6 month, it just didnt happen, i wasnt expected that. The landlord called me two months before the lease was up and asked if i intended to stay after that and i said yes, i think i have that in text form. It doesnt really matter here. I didnt know. Im disappoint witched the Building Inspections per speption, the statute that discusses the need to go through conditional use specifically states and this is i dont think this has been amended, this is in section 317c4, the removal of an unauthorized unit does not require a conditional use authorization pursuant to the above section, if dbi has determined if there is no path for legalization under section 106 of the building code, and then 106a13, that was never determined. Ill take you one at a time. Address your comment tos the board. With the permit holder discussed the very issue that there was someone living there and whether or not this would need to go to conditional use, one of the questions that was asked is that is there any evidence that anyone used this as a resident radioprior to january, 2013, which is under 106a313 a2 is one of the threshold criteria for legalization, because it was not used as a residential unit prior to to that date, she had no evidence of it, she was told the permit would be granted without having to go through the conditional use process, again, theres a screening, if theres no path to legalization which shes now been told twice d first time after she bought the building and the second time when she applied to this perm, theres no path to legalization, theres no plan for it to go to planning, thats what she was told. Are you aware that new legislation passed just two months ago . I think my understanding of the youre talking about the alvarez lit gai, i thoublgtbacker thought that only applied to Market Street . Any nonwarranted property cannot be converted back, it ma to go through and attempt to be legalized, another thing is there a reason why you did not submit a brief . I did not submit a brief because they did not submit a brief. Well, i parentally this was set for an earlier date. They agreed and then i started getting emails saying were you allowed to a late briefing, i was in the middle of a trial and couldnt respond and then no one submitted a brief, thats why were here apparently with no briefs. Anything further, mr. Curan. Step on up. I dont see where there was ever any evidence of this path to legalizing it, you know, it sounds like except for an inoperable window, it may not have been too big a hurdle to legalize this unit. In termser of the Building Department . Yes, sir, strictly, thats all i can speak on. Understood. Any other questions . [inaudible]. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you, scott sanchez, briefly, just to reiterate, this permit simply was not properly review and had approved and there is no evidence that the Department Building inspection has made a determination there is no path to legalization, no path to legalization doesnt mean that you need an inoperable window and theres no path because theres no operable window, under our legislation, there has to be something thats unreasonable, an unreasonable amount of work to be done to legalize the unit and theres been in evidence by the permit holder to demonstrate this needs to go through the appropriate review process and properly documented. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Im in agreement with what the department said, nothing has been presented to us that would allow us to make a determination that any of the criteria have been met or not met, so at this point in time, were faced with a very clear legislation that specifies certain things. I agree, unfortunately, its bad timing on the Property Owner that this legislation passed but there is as commissioner vicepresident fung recognized, there is clear legislation that says we cannot issue this permit. Er ill move to grant the appeal and request revocation of the permit on the basis that was improperly reviewed issued. Okay, thank you, theres a motion from the vicepresident to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis it was improperly review and had issued, on that motion, commissioner lazarus . Aye. President honda . Aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. Commissioner swig . Aye. That carry widths a vote of 40. Our last item is item 10, appeal number 16098, California Hotel restaurant versus Zoning Administrator. 653 harrison street, appeal thing issuance on april 29, 2016 of a notice of violation and penalty. We will start with the appellant. I have to disclose that i have had past dealings with [inaudible] those dealings have no impact on my ability to make a fair decision on this. Thank you. Good evening, president honda, commissioners, ilene dick, were appealing the notice of violation, the nov was the culmination of an 8 month process precipitated of the filing of a Building Application for a wall sign on june 1, 2015 by the tenant, terminal inc. , an nov here is not warranted, the issuance of the nov is not supported by the fact ins the regard and reflects an interpretation of the planning sxoed the 2014dpr moratorium adopted by the board of supervisors, we urge you to grant the appeal and revoke the nov, to be clear, there was no pdr use in the building at the time the moratorium became effective on october 9, 2014. At that time, the building which is what terminal occupy and is whats before you in terms of the nov, the remainder of the building being occupied for selfstorage being occupied by the owner which has been a use thats been in place for 30 years. That front space was vacant the time the moratorium was adopted. Prior to the moratorium, the front space had been occupy framed 1992 to 2014 by a series of building contractor, under the planning code in effect during those tenancies and at the time the moratorium was passed, those uses were designated as home and Business Services which was a permitted use in the m1 zoning and not a pdr uses, the terminal tenancy began on march 1, 2015. It was not until the march, 2015 planning code revisions which was a wholesale over a wholesale redo of the planning code definition, the planning code was amended to reclassify the prior home and business use that is were in the building as pdr use, that change occurred after the Effective Date of the pdr moratorium and which on its face speaks clearly to the fact that what it was regulating and governing were pdr uses existing at the time of the enactment and it was put in place [inaudible]. This is exhibit c of the brief we provided at page 2 lines 1214, this board intends to place a moratorium on changes to and replacements of pdr uses, at page 3, line 67, these controls are intended and designed to deal with and ameliorate the problems and conditions associated to changes to and replacement of pdr uses. The phrase changes to and replacement of pdr uses is recited in both those provisions and it has meaning only if it apply tos pdr musings, consequently, for the nov to be properly issued, the va had to ignore the clear language of the moratorium that it applies to pdr uses existing at the time the moratorium became effective. The categorization of the uses in place the time the moratorium was in place. To reach its conclusion, the ca also had to fabricate an entirely new provision in terms of applying the planning code to retroactively change the use that is were previously there from a nonpdr use which didnt exist at the time pdr into a pdr use just so the moratorium could apply. As you heard in previous hears, retro activity is rare and difficult to do, and this kind of bureaucrat initiated retroactive legislation needs the chaos an uncertainty in terms of administering the code and reasonable expectations that propertied owners can have. If we continue this, it would give the va [inaudible] its unfair to Property Owners and ten mantises who could not have foreseen that a march, 2014 planning code change would alter the use of the building based on space that was previously vacate and had that use no longer existed, and the nov relies on building perms that does not [inaudible] that printing was present in the building from 1967 to 76, three Building Permits were issued in 1967, 1970 and 76, the 1967 and 1970 pert were for warehouse and storage use, the 1976 permit was aproved from planning to upgrade an existing Office Printing use. According to the nov, because the 19ed 67 and 76 permits were for the same applicant which is not true and would have no bearing on the outcome, the printing use approved by the 1976 permit must have been continuously in use since 1967, however, neither the 1967 or 1970 permits were approved by planning and neither of them could establish a legal use, the only conclusion that could be drawn is there was a printing use in the build ining 1976, not a continuous 9 year printing use, there was and that is consistent with the reverse phone directories showing printing uses in the build framing 1976 to 1977, the last time there was a pdr use in the building. As indicate ined our brief, the grounds relied on by the decision were without factual support and do not support the conclusion that there is an existing pdr use, they exceed the limits of the vas reasonable discretion in interpreting the planning code, the explicit language to have moratorium with regard to protecting existing pdr uses and the classification of the building uses that were there prior to the terminal tenancy, if this is sustained the va would have free reign on flimsy evidence based on past and future codes, this does not provide a credible basis for such results. The consequences of upholding the nov would be the uncertainty of the buildings legal use x the xhaj of identifying that use. Given the lack of clear guidance from planning and the citys poor record keep and the lack of certainty would depress property sales and [inaudible] spaces for long periods, we urge the board to grant the appeal and revoke the nov and were happy to answer any questions. [inaudible]. Your argument hinges on those uses within the timeframe you have spelled out that you say are not pdr. You provided some information on that but there is no physical information in terms of either photos or plans, so we can tell exactly whether if you have a designation as office something, is that office a one cubicle. The names of these kinds of businesses that were in there doesnt lends itself to me to make a direct correlation as to xhaktly what they did. I appreciate what youre saying, commissioner fung, there arebacker there were Building Contractors office ins there, there were not Building Permits pulled for those uses, so they just were continue wows rented to those spaces, but i guess in terms of the office use, or in terms of the front space, we did provide a photograph and there is its a small area that 3500 front space, and getting to your question about the plans, as i recall from the nov, there were no plans for the 1976 permit, and the 1967 and 1970 permits, again, didnt have plans and neither of those were reviewed or approver by planning so those dont really establish a public use. So, it was the permit copy that is you provided that were available . Thats correct, and again its partly in response to the novs findings, they refbacker referenced the 1967, 19ed 70 and 1976 permits as the basis for concluding there had been a warehouse pdr use in the building and thats the last one we used so thats what we were trying to respond to. Okay, and my question is similar, counselor, is that in your briefs, you indicate that there was a temporary printing in the year of 1976, correct . In 1976 to 1970. When you say a printing outfit a Printing Press in 1976, those things weighed 15 ton, i find it hard to believe a company is going to come in and spend that kind of infrastructure for a 12 month period. The basis for that information, the reverse phone directories, because often thyme when is the permits arent clear, theres no plan history, you go to the reverse phone directories which are evidence that there was this act tift and by virtue of the names to have company that is were there at that time, we dont dispute it was printing but it was only for that two years, so it was connecting that 19ed 76 permit and i saw the reverse as well, im just trying to weigh in, its not like printers that we have today that take up a desk, these printers were like three cars. Er and that printing activity probably occur ined the rear space which is much more huge, its a big warehouse space, again, thats the evidence we had because the permit history was incleat, it was based on the reverse phone directories. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you, scott sanchez, Planning Department. So, we have another enforcement matter relate today the illegal conversion of pdr space to an office use, this is not the first item that has been before you, its similar in nay khu, it went be the last, this is something that is very important to the city, very serious matter we take in the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and the board of supervisors. As with all these cases, the facts are always slily different and we evaluate each one properly, i believe in this case that the decision that is before you is extremely well written, i think extremely thorough, detailed and correct. I can say that i didnt write that, it was assistant m ins rate teague who who this, this is an m1 Zoning District which does allow office use were it not sbr an interim moratorium that the board of supervisors adopted in september of 2014, initially a 45 day moratorium however extended to this year until october 9 of this year, it does prohibit the conversion of pdr space to other uses. Then just going back through some of the facts here as they are if the appellants brief. Based upon their information, we can agree, we can all agree that the prior occupant was building canting tor, a history of Building Contractors based upon the brief, the last use left there at the end of october of 2014 of the next tenant occupied a terminal, an officer use, occupied it in march of 2015. Theres no Building Permit for this change of use, i mean, one of the is yus that weve debated hotly on other case that is have been before you, our permit history is showing office some history of office use, even if when we argue, theres an office to office, theres no permit to change it to office but at least theres some office to office permit that the appellant usually grasps on, in this case, there is no such permit history, the most recent permits are from 2015 for sign that is were not issued, 2004 permit for sprinkler as the building as warehouse, prior to that, a wall sign, g en, another permit for 96 for roofing, for warehouse, retail sales in 1990, manufacturing in 1983, so there was no permit history here and had there been, the appellant would have presented this. The appellants main contention is this should not be subject to the moratorium because trade and the Contractors Office is not a pdr use, at least it wasnt at the time the control was adopted and thats incorrect, there are no facts to support that. The definition of pdr prior to the code reorganization that was referenced in 215 did very clearly and has always included home and Business Service uses and if i could have the overhead, please. The overhead, please, thank you. So, this section, prior to the code reorganization, these definitions were listed in section 401, this is a copy of section 401 as it was adopted in 2010, pdr use, those uses contained in sections 222, 223, ill stop there, so very clearly, this was a pdr use as of the date Effective Date of the controls, it was occupied by a pdr use, they left that space, no permit was sought to instill the new tenant, nor could one have been issued because of the interim control, the appellant also argues that somehow we have to you have to actively displace a tenant. I just dont think that is correct either. The last legal use is a pdr use. They are converting it to office use, maybe allowed under the Zoning District but its not allowed under the moratorium. Theyre very clearly in violation. Some of the arguments the appellant puts forward would encourage illegal conversions because you would say, right now the tenant in there is office, they didnt displace anyone because its an office use now, it doesnt matter, there was no one that is being displaced by this. I dont see the arguments or the reasoning behind the appellants statements there and i think this is a pretty clearcut case, i dont think there was any abuse of discretion of reviewing this, i dont think theres any wild precedent that could be set here other than compliance with the code which i dont think is that wild at all, its something we should be striving to achieve, so with that, ill be available for any questions, i think this is very clearly a matter of illegal conversion to office space and ill yield for questions. So, your point in reference to at least two previous cases that we have heard is that there was where the same subject came up is there was a history of office use even though it wasnt exactly permitted for office use . Thats been the argument of appellants is that theres a history of permits saying office to office, office to office, and those cases, our argument has been theres no permit to establish that office, if someone comes in with a permit that says the proposed use is office t existing use is office, that gets review and had approved without much review or consideration of the records, were relying based upon what they put ton record as the existing legal use and those cases would have concerns because theyre misrepresenting it, in this case, theres not a permit history of office. A question, mr. Sanchez, so all of a sudden were starting to see more and more of these. Is there a reason or are you stepping up enforcement, if the law was two years ago, why are they coming into play now . Thats an excellent point, so we have received more complaints, theres been a dramatic increase in complaints in part because of the increase of pressure, so theres more increase in demand for the office space, more people are finding that its more profitable to rent to office uses rather than pdr uses and part of it is also too our enforcement process takes time. The enforcement letters on this go back to last year and this was the result of the complaint that we received from the public. Ing and could you again just refresh our memory quickly of what enforcement entails at this point since weve gone through this process already, where you do guys go from now if there is a tenant currently occupy it is property and theres notice of violations, could you explain na . We would request the board uphold this position which would impose up to 220 a day and they would have to address this violation and take proper action to remove the illegal use. Thank you for explaining that. Which in this case would mean pdr. Which in this case would mean converting ridding the area of an office and moving back to a pdr use. Its simply abating the violation and no longer having an office use there, an active office use would address it but certainly we would like to see the space used in the future for pdr, its my understanding theres a larger product here which she seek to demolish this and other build advising build a larger project up to a million feet of office space and seek that approval under the pending central soma legislation, but its my understanding that applications on file for a much larger project here. Its across th street here . This is at [inaudible]. Yeah. Mr. Sanchez, the central soma, have there been any drafts . Its been an ongoing process and were currently going through the environmental review, it is still a work in process, theres been representations about well, in the faou khu, office will be allowed as a right. What theyre discussing now is also some maintaining some pdr you wouldnt convert the entire billing but you would retain some of the existing pdr and this is addressing some o of the issues that have been raiseesed. Has there anything been issue today the public sbe sides the eir . You know how rumors work, and i had heard that the central soma plant was going to have no pdr. Theres definitely i can tell you were talking to staff woulds working on, there is a lot of desire to have pdr replacement policy. Nothings final yet. Anything can change until you get to the board of supervisors. Is there a correlation then if thats coming out towards the last quarter of this year, is there a correlation then between these cases and i dont know if there are other ones coming up and potentially seeing how the legislation will fit in with these enforcement cases . We have enforcement cases throughout the city, so its were not seeing complaints just in central soma plant area. We wont go on a hypothetical, but lets go to the and i was trying to track the permits there and i dont remember seeing the 1980 permit and the 90 permit, but appellants case in terms of the timeline, you know, goes back to the 76 permit which their contention was reviewed by planning and therefore constitutes a change of use. So, the permit history indicate and the records of past tenants indicate as long history of industrial and pdr uses, so there is no historical evidence of this being as principally permitted office space as primary office space, i think the appellant may be arguing theres accessory office space in some of these uses but there ao noes clear evidence of Principal Office space nor has that been continued, the last use was a pdr use because it was a Contractors Office. Yes, it was beyond accessory, it was not totally office use but it was beyond accessory. But certainly the last use that we have in there, the last tenant was i understand that. Was contractors. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then we will have rebuttal from theres no one from the public going to xhen on this . I dont know if there are compliant or others, we just have to ask. Commissioners, [inaudible] dick from [inaudible] mar tele, this brief was addressing the notice of violation and the finagled and the analysis that was done by the Planning Department. The issue at hand here is there was a vacant space that was vacated d it was vacate the time the moratorium was adopt and had there was no history for the owners or the tenants to have determined what the last legal use was. The permit that is are referenced by planning that they want to give weight to particularly with saying that one of the last legal uses was warehouse were permits that werent approved by planning, again, thats classic one point of what you have to do to get a legal use determination which is its reviewed and approved by planning and youve done it but again the at the nov makes it clear there was a pdr use based on 1976, 67 and 70 permits, we can see by reverse phone directory there were printing uses on there, there is no evidence other than the reverse phone directory how long those printing uses were there, so to try to insert some fairness into this, the idea that on the one hand you could look at permits that were issued 40 years ago for a use this was only there for less than five years and an owner nr the 21st century would be able to discern that and say, my goodness, we have a pdr use here under the moratorium, you cant have anything but a pdr use and conversely, you have the treatment of the home and Business Services, whether they were pdr uses or not, that space was vacant, again, it seems to go against the grade against what the board of supervisors were trying to do with all due respect to the Zoning Administrator, what you use phrasing like existing uses and we are supposed to interpret legislation as plain language, that seems to suggest that its more than a pdr use that may or may not have been there in 67 or 70 or even continues, we can see it by the reverse phone directory were there, that should not constitute a violation under the moratorium because then you have people who are going to be looking all over the place trying to get advice or guidance from building or planning and its not going to be there. We dealt with this on brannan street earlier this month in perfect histories and Property Owners again arent clear about what to do, most of them dont know, often get bad advice and end up in a swailtion, here again, there was a reasonable belief that the prior Business Contracting offices were office use because thats the look and the outlay of the space that was used, there was no reason for them to believe that that was pdr use, so i would ask you the give some consideration to the fairness and equity of this and because it is an nov and it has some severe consequences. Thank you. Thank you. In your brief, you made the argument that the Business Services is not a pdr use, the za has indicated the deaf nation from 2010 indicates that it was, do you want to respond to that . I will, i looked at section 401 to look tat definitions, it was replaced from section 402 in 2015, i couldnt find it, i tried the board of supervisors website, i couldnt find it, i tried, i thought i did thor thorough research, a change was made in 2013 to broaden the you indicated it was section 222. No, the section of the planning code that referenced that section 222 was section 401. And then but that was from 2010. Your brief, i couldnt quite remember the date, indicates the definition of pdr changed in 2015. These were trade offices. And trade officers are therefore not a pdr use in that . No, in fact the office that the trade offices were pdr offices, the 2015 revision tos the planning code definitions reconstituted the scope of trade service and is said trade offices and said trade offices are pdr uses so thats what i was teaming on to and i respectfully zoning m ins rate torx i could not find section 401 in that, but thank you, if you have any further questions, im happy to answer them. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you, scott sanchez, Planning Department, just on two points, first, so what happened last year was a code reorganization project, it was not substantive changes, what it did was try to consolidate definitions in one part of the planning code in section 102, so what happened, its all part of the same ordinance, elements of section 401 were amended and were moved and sought to reference the new augmented section 102, nas what happened. The 401 was still on the same piece of legislation, its a large piece of legislation, hundreds of pages, i can understand the difficulty in finding it, the fact is it is there and that existed previous to that and it is very clear that home and business is a pdr use and going back to timing,backer, maybe i misunderstood the appellant and their description of it, i thought they had said at the time the moratorium took effect, the pdr use, the Contractors Office as a pdr use, that had already been abandoned, even in their own brief, they do note on the first page, the moratorium was adopted by the board of supervisors on october 9, 2014 and on the next page towards the bottom, that they were vacated, the Contractors Offices were vacated on october 31, 2015, so they were vacated after the Effective Date of the moratorium, even if we do hear the appellants argument that is it was concerned about use that is were active at that time and not preserving space, that is wonderful space for pdr users which i believe is is the intent, not just to preserve those businesses that were in operation at that time, i disagree with that interpretation of the moratorium, if we listen to that, their own statement of facts here doesnt support their claim, so i respectfully request that you uphold the thorough, well reasoned notice of violation penalty decision that is before you. Thank you. So, im trying to frame this for myself, maybe youll give me some help here. So, if theres a building, and lets call it a repair shop, and that would fit under pdr. Right. This building and the point i think the appellants trying to make is if this building was empty for a long period of time and it just wasnt being used as a repair shop, then listen, i need space for an office, im just going to move into the repair shop, and your position is, even if its empty for 15 year, its still a space reserved for a repair shop because the intent of the district in which that repair shop is located is to have a balance of pdr and office and therefore we really have to much like we do with lowincome housing, we have to sustain that lowincome housing and not convert it to market rate housing because that preserves the integrity of the neighborhood. Am i is that a good analogy . Yes, i think thats a good way of putting it. In this case, its the question of the moratorium and i believe that even under the moratorium, if it is vacant pdr space, it doesnt mean you can just convert it to another use, i believe its still covered under the moratorium and youll be subject to the prohibition on conversion of that pdr space. Because the intent of plan ising to maintain a business mix, a certain character and with that an integrity of a neighborhood. And these are interim controls that were initiated by the board of supervisors that were adopted but also signed by the mayor and extended. I mean, it was initially for 45 days and extended for a much longer period of time to address concerns that the board had and i believe this runs afoul of that control. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. You know, based upon the last comments and discussions, i think the Crucial Point here is its not so much whether an area that was pdr continues to be pdr, i think thats a given, i think the question the appellant is making is whether we buy into the idea that this particular building and its particular uses are not constrained by the moratorium in the sense that it is not was not during the period of time in that moratorium that it was a pdr use, and its still a little bit of a question mark in my mind. You know, i could see a couple of things that lend itself toward that argument but then theres it wasnt as compelling as some of the other things ive seen recently. Myself, after going through the brief, i was leaning towards the office as i completed it and read it more thoroughly, im on the belief that it is pdr and that the departments nov was issued correctly. And thats exactly where i went. I was very prooffice, and then i considered a broader picture and i ended up where you did, mr. President. Anybody else want to weigh in . If someone could make a motion. Do you have a motion . To deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not e rr or abuse their discretion. Thank you, so we have a motion from the president to deny the appeal and uphold the notice of violation and penalty on the basis that the Zoning Administrator did not e rr or abuse his discretion, on that motion, vicepresident fung . Aye. Commissioner lazarus . Aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. Commissioner. That carries with a vote of 4 0. Theres no further business before the board tonight. meeting is adjourned . Were here to raise awareness and money and fork for a good accuse. We have this incredible gift probably the widest range of restaurant and count ii destines in any district in the city right here in the mission intricate why dont we capture that to support the mission youths going to college thats for the food for thought. We didnt have a signature font for our orientation thats a 40yearold organization. Mission graduates have helped me to develop special as an individual theyve helped me figure out and provide the tools for me that i need i feel successful in life their core above emission and goal is in line with our values. The ferraris yes, we made 48 thousand they were on top of that its a nobrainer for us. Were in and fifth year and be able to expand out and tonight is your ungrammatical truck food for thought. Food truck for thought is an opportunity to eat from a variety of different vendor that are supporting the mission graduates by coming and representing at the parks were giving a prude of our to give people the opportunity to get an education. People come back and can you tell me and enjoy our food. All the vendor are xooment a portion of their precedes the money is going back in whats the best thing to do in terms of moving the needle for the folks we thought Higher Education is the tool to move young people. Im also a College Student i go to berkley and 90 percent of our folks are staying in college thats 40 percent hire than the afternoon. Im politically to clemdz and ucla. Just knowing were giving back to the community. Especially the Spanish Speaking population it hits home. People get hungry why not eat and give call the first item. Thank you, madam chair the first order of business is item one roll call commissioners respond commissioner pimentel commissioner bustos is absent commissioner singh commissioner mondejar is absent commissioner rosales commissioner mondejar and commissioner bustos are absent all other members of the commission are present the next order of business announcements a the next regularly scheduled meeting