Its an honor to have you in the chamber, congratulations again and thank you for making San Francisco a beautiful place for everyone to enjoy. Thank you. Well, colleagues, that concludes our commendations for the day. Thank you to all the honorees and the people who join them in recognizing some amazing folks who not only take care of San Francisco, but make San Francisco a more beautiful place. Looking forward to next week commendations where we will im sure have some more amazing people. Thank you all so much for being here today. All right. With that, madam clerk, well go to our first 3 00 p. M. Special order. Please read the item. Items 2427, comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review, under the California Environmental quality act or approved on november 30th, proposed project at 1526 wallace avenue to process and sell small lifestock in a pdrtwo processing distribution and zoning repair district. Item 25 is the mo
President breed . Here. Supervisor cohen . Present. Supervisor fewer . Present. Supervisor kim . Present. Supervisor peskin . Present. Supervisor ronen . Present. Supervisor sheehy . Present. Supervisor stephanie . Present. Supervisor tang . Present. Supervisor yee . Present. Madame president , all members are present. President breed please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisiblindivisibl and justice for all. Any communications . None to report. President breed colleagues, today were approving the minutes from january 29, 2018. Are there amendments to those minutes . Seeing none, motion to approve . Moved by supervisor tang. Seconded by supervisor yee. Can we take that without observation . Those minute meetings approved after public comment. Madame clerk please call the first item. The first item is the special order at 2 p. M. , the appearance by the h
This concluded i havent submitted. I tried and okay refer the question. So sorry me. So given the fact that this will probably not be the last verizon case before us and id rather not each of case individual but given the conditions here the personal Wireless Service facility noted obstruct the view or light into any adjacent arranged window to me is extremely vague theres no basis and no clarity and so to help us later on, i mean i personally feel that commissioner on that note we are trying to find that language moving forward and im wondering if planning can help us in the code. Maybe we should ask planning that question. So the question i have really is to have dpfks in the code of planning yards in regards to temple item 12 im sure. So the desire of the board to see the public works can provide the clarity on the item. No right now something on the bingo it defines number tentatively. Theyd our challenge and my concern as well so, i mean i dont know my how other commissioners feel
Basis and no clarity and so to help us later on, i mean i personally feel that commissioner on that note we are trying to find that language moving forward and im wondering if planning can help us in the code. Maybe we should ask planning that question. So the question i have really is to have dpfks in the code of planning yards in regards to temple item 12 im sure. So the desire of the board to see the public works can provide the clarity on the item. No right now something on the bingo it defines number tentatively. Theyd our challenge and my concern as well so, i mean i dont know my how other commissioners feel. Address the question to dpw. If one of you want to im the big boss in the how house. Mr. Bryan the question is unclear thats a code requirement or something that can be negotiated because there are conditions that the appellant the permit holder can agree to the code requirement is contrary that significantly impairs the view of discern thanks thats what youre looking at but
Commissioner on that note we are trying to find that language moving forward and im wondering if planning can help us in the code. Maybe we should ask planning that question. So the question i have really is to have dpfks in the code of planning yards in regards to temple item 12 im sure. So the desire of the board to see the public works can provide the clarity on the item. No right now something on the bingo it defines number tentatively. Theyd our challenge and my concern as well so, i mean i dont know my how other commissioners feel. Address the question to dpw. If one of you want to im the big boss in the how house. Mr. Bryan the question is unclear thats a code requirement or something that can be negotiated because there are conditions that the appellant the permit holder can agree to the code requirement is contrary that significantly impairs the view of discern thanks thats what youre looking at but this is Something Different perhaps the parties negotiate after all weve with