affidavit and made aware of a theatre next door. we believe we have addressed the validity of this condition in our three page brief. we ask for the phrase to be inserted in the phrase. thank you very much for your time. >> can you repeat that last suggested modification? >> yes. quote, prior to the purchase -- >> what letter? >> condition h. >> okay. >> ", prior to purchase or lease" inserted after the phrase "to sign an affidavit. >> my eyes aren't finding. >> it's in the boards draft conditions of findings. first sentence. >> read the sentence in insert. >> prior to purchase or lease." where is that? >> to be inserted after the phrase, "to sign an affidavit". >> okay. prior to purchase or lease. okay. thank you. >> good evening, steve williams. i'm confused about the scope of the hearing. to my understanding is the hearing is to comments on the findings. i submitted those on my letter. there is no hearing on the merits of the case. there is none of that is to occur at this hearing is my understanding. if there is a different reading of the rules, then i think i need to know that before i get started. the board voted and then closed that hearing, said no more briefing, no more exhibits. now i'm confused when the city attorney commented that it was on for another hearing. so. >> it's not another hearing. it's the same hearing. >> if it's different, i need to know under what rule is that occurring. >> we did come to a vote and voted for the conditions setforth in the draft. we asked for a briefing and an opportunity for each side each appellant and the permit holder to address any issues that they felt were raised boo i the findings and issues were raised. we are here to consider them and listen to what is presented to us today. and we'll take those under consideration on the adoptive findings. >> okay. when i look at the rule under article 5 section 8. it speaks only of the findings and every sentence with that rule begins with the findings and now that some how to hearing is reopened and voted. anyway, steve williams representing appellant alicia gamez. the procedures are clear, the findings should be inaccurate. detailed reflection of the discussions and deliberations have by the board at the last time and the findings in this case should reflect the unanimous vote and discussions had by the board. the appellants want to thank director goldstein, she followed the rules. she gave everybody a fair chance to comment on the findings. we think that what she produced is accurate. she rejected a very detailed attempt by the project sponsor to argue the merits and sort of rewrite history with new findings that had absolutely nothing do with the deliberations and statements from the board. so what's before you we believe does reflect the findings made by the board. the find gsz have provision from the general plan, statements from the priority policies, the housing elements, the urban design element and these provisions mostly cited by appellants in their breefgsz -- breefgsz briefings to the board and reflect the policies of the existing neighborhoods and characters of the existing neighborhoods and including meeting the heights of the existing neighborhoods and and we cited to those and we are pleased the board agreed with us on those findings. i did want to comment on the second letter submitted by the project sponsor's council on the housing accountability avenlth -- act. you would think from the letter that the state law had removed all discretion from local bodies to design and comment on housing in their localities. it's simply not true. unfortunately mr. -- did not fully quote the law. i have brought a copy of it. he stops his quote in mid-sentence. he left out the references tools to manage -- that the criteria can be -- reviewed. they comply with the plans and the mission area plans and those policies are spelled out in black and white. we urge the board to adopt the findings as is and we believe they are in inaccurate representation. >> i would like a copy of the full text for everybody else. >> compare that to the second page of the letter he stopped his quote in mid-sentence and left out that the board certainly has the power and duty to decide housing issues on design criteria as well. >> can you give me the actual code citation? >> 65589.5 j >> okay. commissioners you all have a copy of this piece of legislation. >> in that code section was aimed at specific cases that occurred in southern california for some housing was blocked in an arbitrary manner without findings and that is not case here where the board has made detailed findings which -- echo. >> is your time up? >> yes, it is. >> okay. thank you. >> are you ready to hear from the project sponsor now? >> yes. okay. you have 6 minutes. >> commissioners andrew genius. i'm really happy to be here and appreciate the time that you are an allowing us to meet here and find the time. i very much appreciate the 6 minutes. we are going to split our time. i'm going to take the first few minutes to discuss the government code section and then i will turn it to my client to speak for a few minutes about the construction issue that also you are making findings on today. let's start with the government code. 65589.5j for standards for findings based on one of the actions based on the removal of the floor. specifically if a local density wants to remove housing project must make a findings that it's necessary to protect from a quote specific adverse impact on public health and safety. i have a provisions of the code here. it will be exactly what mr. williams handed forward. there is no differentiation between what he has provided you and what we have provided you. what he cited in the reference has nothing to do based on public health and safety. >> why did you leave it out? >> i was limited to 3 pages, double space. >> you could have left dots there. >> my apologies. i hope you will take a closer look at it. >> i will take that. thanks. >> thank you very much. >> so at the december 11th hearing, one of the actions was to remove to begin the process to remove to top floor of the project. unfortunately the findings before you today and the issue i'm interested in today is that those findings are unacceptable and do not satisfy this code section. it deals with code and safety and different from planning code issues. what exactly did the public health and safety have to do with land use policies and land use issues? let's start with the public safety aspect. we have a building code. the building code is an extremely important part of san francisco. we want buildings to be safe. we don't want this em to fall down in earthquakes. there is a requirement for life safety and when there is a fire, there is no risk of life. those are important for the building code. there was nothing raised at the last hearing in december that would say otherwise. where is the evidence in the record that says that a 5 story building would be any less safe than a 4 story building. that's the findings you are supposed to make under this code section. public health, we have a health code. you have a huge range from general to restaurant regulation. there is some overlap, there is some department of public health issues, storage tanks. you will find nothing in the city's health code or any other code that speaks to the issue of whether a larger building or smaller building has any specific effect on the public's health. any significant impact adverse to the public's health. where is the specific adverse impact on public health and safety that would be caused by a health code. i couldn't get the entire section into my letter. i thank you, i'm available for questions. i would like to turn it over for the remainder of my time. thanks. >> good evening, madam president. mark, permit holder. we respectfully request that the board allows us to retain a work permit. that is 7-6:00 p.m.. we heard testimonies how the marsh has changed people's lives and how new housing was going to run out the neighborhood. we did not hear with any evidence or facts to support the findings. 1 person testified they have been interrupted during the performance and they heard noise next door. the 7-4:00 p.m. restrictions places a burden on us and inconvenience. it makes this project unfeasible for safety and financial standpoint. dragging this job out pro longs all the congestion and the community disruption that comes with it. the original 7-6:00 p.m. time restrictions were arrived at after the appellant and commission and permit holder. and they are arbitrarily imposed. these new stop work time seems more like a sentence, more like a punishment than anything practical. please remember that despite all the demonization that we have heard here, creating jobs and tax base is still a desirable activity. we want to get this project done quickly. i just have to address the thing with mary gallagher here. we had nine meetings with the pell avenlt three of those meetings were with myself were specifically to address problems with their building that we were offering to do pro bono work, consulting to take care of whatever their problems. nine meetings. to say we never met at the last meeting is false testimony. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question for the project sponsor's attorney, please. >> thank you, commissioner. >> it's not clear to me that the housing accountability act applies to this project. can you explain how this project fits the definition or what is the definition of housing development project? >> it is defined in the act itself. so what i have provided you the act is 10 pages long. the provision that is relevant here is in subsection j. that is held in court back in 2011. >> but she wants to know how and whether the project itself is subject to that act? >> subsection j says when a proposed housing development project. so that must be defined somewhere in the government code. that's why what i need to know what was the definition and how do you think this project fits that definition otherwise it's not clear to me this code applies to this project. >> certainly. i can answer that. under subsection h 12 says "housing development project means the use of any of the consisting following. residence only, limited to commercial uses and first floor that are two or more stories as used in this paragraph, neighborhood commercials, subsection c traditionally house or supportive housing. it can be any of those three things. it clearly we are under h 2a or b. this actually does have some ground floor retail. it's a housing project under the definition and you go j, subject in j applies. >> i was trying to find that language we do have. can you explain why how you this i this project fits that definition? what part of the definition? >> under h 2a and b it's a housing project. it has residential units in it. that's what housing project is. >> it says residential units only. >> the rest says mixed use. >> there is more to that actually. >> it's neighborhood commercial uses at the first floor buildings are two or more stories for this project, that's the neighborhood commercial use permitted at the ground floor of this property. >> hold on. i'm going to show you this code section. this issue hasn't really been briefed. you have excerpted this section and you have applied it to this section. we need a moment to define in the code section what you are referring to. >> of course. >> so you are saying the project fits subsection b, 3, h. >> b. capital b. >> so, b applies, then and it says here under h 1 -- it's h 2b is what it is. >> thank you, yes. >> as used in this paragraph, neighborhood commercial means small scale general or specialty stores primarily to residented of the neighborhood. i don't believe it was stated in the record how what commercial was going to be in that space. >> at this point we don't really know. it could be a restaurant. it could fall into that category. >> certainly, if you don't even know, then we don't know. >> i'm not sure it matters. why would it matter. >> we want to know the act that you have submitted to us for purposes of us determining whether the findings that we have drafted are appropriate is actually applicable here. we are asking you to help us understand what you've presented to us. that's why it matters. >> i understand. >> okay. >> it's been planned as a restaurant. and i would think that fits this definition. >> okay. then that was the answer. >> okay. thank you. >> we don't know. so that's one of the problems. >> shall we hear from the zoning administrator? mr. sanchez. you also have 6 minutes. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. i will be brief as everyone else has been, we appreciate the diligent efforts of the deputy city attorney in these findings and the process that they have allowed for all parties to comment on that and also understand and appreciate the boards decision on this matter. i wasn't at the previous hearing but i did see a part of it televised. i understand the concerns of the board. however i also share the concerns that were raised by supervisors avalos, kim, mar, campos and by supervisor wiener. this is a code compliant project, it meets all the requirements for the zoning district and meets all the requirements and policies for the neighborhood plan. additionally this project was approved prior to the adoption of prop c and had 12 units for the subproperty. after propc that has lowered, so any projects with similar dwelling units wouldn't have the higher affordability. it's an opportunity to develop a project that is code complying that provides affordable housing and for that we respectfully request the board reconsider this matter. i'm available for questions. >> question. mr. sanchez, in the discretionary review action by the department there was an item about reoccurring the refinement along hill street. do you know what was intended by that encouragement action? >> i think that it was a balance the commission that had trying to incur some subtle refinements but the primary goal was to ensure the number of units would not be reduced. we certainly feel that the project does comply with the will of the commission and thus we approved the building permit application. if there were some changes after the planning hearing in relation to some of the design, some of the materials as well, but, we believe that it does meet the intent of the commission and as such we approved it. >> i have one question. does the planning department have a position regarding the section, the state section in regards that the permit holder is presenting before us? >> i'm not an attorney. i would refer to your attorney for legal advice. >> has it been brought up at the planning deposition and planning commission? >> not at any time. this is an older statute. i think it's been on the books for more than a decade. i don't know the exact date it was introduced. so it may have been raised at earlier times, but this is certainly, i can't recall anything that was recently specifically citing this act. >> okay. thank you. mr. duffy, anything? i would like to see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on public comment on this item? great. if you would do a few things if you haven't already, if you fill out a speaker card after you come out to speak and give it to mr. pacheco and that will help in the preparation of our minutes. folks who are able to lineup on the far side of the room and the first person can come up to the podium. i think we are going with 2 minutes. we are losing one of our commissioners at a certain time tonight. if the line can start at the edge of the podium. next person in line just keep stepping forward. each person is going to have 2 minutes to speak. the first person may begin. >> thank you, my name is elizabeth. i live on liberty hill street. i want to address the govd code section 655985 that mr. williams mentions. mr. genius recited j 1 about health and safety. but those criteria do not apply here. section 65589.5 j says as you've heard and you see in front of you when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria including design review standards and effect at the time. and then, if it complies, then other conditions may come to bear, but it does not comply. and your findings say it does not comply. if state law had planted all local authority to design and reduce housing projects except for the case of health and welfare, it would be front page news. the case that mr. genius referenced in southern california, this -- there were no findings made. i'm sure the attorney will direct the board on that new law if that in fact were the case. i hope that the board will be clear that those criteria that he listed about health and safety do not apply in this situation. thank you very much. >> hello, my name is barbara geshg. i'm a long time resident in san francisco. i just wanted to say that i am in support of the adoption of your draft findings and would also like to speak to some of the comments that were made about the work schedule. i think item h and j or j in particular is very reasonable. my dad was in construction. he did use union labor and they kept to a 40-hour week and built large buildings quite happily. i think this is a necessary condition to not interfere with the operations of the marsh which is a rare treasure and needs to stay in the mission district. also, i think the condition for revealing to perspective buyers and tenants that there might be a noise issue might be reasonable. i would want to know that in advance. and thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. tim cold on on behalf of the housing action. the december meeting was disappointing and also widely notice. the 2000 plan which the project completely conforms took hundreds of community meetings and public hearings to adopt. thousands of people participated in its formation. we thought it was timid in the response by the challenges in san francisco. one of it's central premises was the bargain that in exchange for fees for residential development the city would offer increased certainty and reducing risk for a building trademark of housing in san francisco. if we understand correctly, the mark believes the project imposes a mortal threat. by using the 3 units, on the issue of affordable housing, the affordability of san francisco, we believe we have heard some disparaging remarks, the b mr's were somehow not real affordable housing which is news to us. question, with your vote to 3 units and any obligation to fund housing affordability has housing affordability in san francisco been improved. it's not an exaggeration to say if san francisco is serious about addressing it's housing affordability crisis, houses like valencia are going to have to be replicated hundreds of times throughout our neighborhood. on december 11th, someone needed to stand up for the integrity. i'm sorry that you were not able to that night and ask whether you might not reconsider the decision. the issues at stake in this tiny little project are n