>> good evening and welcome to the january 9, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the residing officer this evening is frank fung and

joining him is darryl honda and ann lazarus and we expect ms. hurtado with us and chris hwang is absent this evening and i am christine grold the executive director. we are joined by the departments that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez is here. he's the zoning administrator and representing the planning commission and patrick rearon is here and i think that joseph duffy will be here as well and john qan is here for public works and street mapping. if you would go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off owl phones and pagers so they will not disrupt the proceedings. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants and departments have seven minutes to present their

cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must be include in that time. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have three minutes up to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the minutes members of the public are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. customer satisfaction survey forms are available on the left side of the penal -- podium, if you have questions please speak to board staff after the meeting or calllet office tomorrow memory. we are located. >> >> >> at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on

san francisco government television sfgtv cable channel 78 and d.v.d's of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgtv. thank you for your attention. at this time we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and have the board give you evidentiary right please stand and say "i do" after you have been sworn in or affirmed. notice any member of the public can speak without taking this oath pursuant to the administrative code and the sunshine ordinance. thank you. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the whoaght truth, nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. i also want to introduce the board's legal

assistants and the deputy attorney is to my right and will provide the board with legal address tonight. commissioner there is is one housekeeping item tonight and regarding appeal of a tobacco sales product at 500 kirkham street. that matter has been withdrawn and not heard this evening so we will move on to public comment. anyone here from the public that would like to speak on an item not on the agenda? seeing none we will move to item two which is commissioners comments and questions? commissioners. >> thank you. i want to note they will not be present at the meetings of january 30 and february 13. >> any other commissioner comments? okay. seeing none any public comment on this item? okay. then we will move to item three which is the

consideration of the board's minutes of the december 12 meeting. >> any modifications or corrections? move acceptance. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none if you would call the roll please. >> on that moigz from vice president fung to adopt the december 12, 2012 minutes. president hwang is absent. commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> commissioner ann lazarus. >> aye. >> that is adopted. >> we will move on to the subject property at 1195 quesada street. the board received a letter from william coggan and san francisco police department

and appeal johnson versus the sfpd decided on november 72012. the board voted three-one-one and to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the basis of the appeal the appellant fully disclosed his conviction history at the time he applied for the permit and there is no proof in in in the rord of any conviction. i want to make sure mr. johnson is here. are you here? you're going to speak on his behalf? thank you. mr. coggan is going first and then you will have your chance. >> good evening commissioners. i am william coggan from the police department and we are prepared to submit what we filed in this issue. thank you. >> okay. now we will hear from

mr. johnson's representative. you will have three minutes. okay. >> good evening board. my name is henry johnson junior -- >> raise the microphone up if it's more comfortable. >> thank you. i am here on behalf of henry johnson of no sense toe and bay bridge towing. i am 22 year's old and work two jobs. i do security at embassy suites and work at victoria secret. i also take a few college courses part time. my younger brcialght is here today and he is 18 year's old. he works for ups. he also has a full time college schedule. my dad -- he works hard to provide

for us. here's been a toeing operator for many years. i don't understand why the san francisco police department is trying to send him to the unemployment line. we're here today to talk about my dad's character and i'm not sure why a wreckless driving conviction during off hours is more than -- it's also more than three years old to affect the ability to maintain a towing permit in the city and county of san francisco. you've ruled once in my dad's favor november of 2012. the san francisco police department appealed. the appeal board decision was for him to be able to maintain his tow permit and i sure hope once again the board continue to allow my dad to maintain his tow permit.

thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> for the record i wasn't here during the original but i did watch the video and looked at the files. >> any comments? >> looking at the files i believe that mr. johnson has been towing for quite some time, and i understand that from looking at it, it was just from went from one tow company to another tow company that this situation came up. is that correct? >> i believe what happened he applied for a second permit to operate as a second company, not to replace the first one.

>> this is a question of granting a rehearing. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> just clarifying this is a issue of granting a rehearing, not a hearing of the merits of the -- >> that's correct. >> and i believe we have some information from the city attorney's office that would lead us to conclude we should regrant the rehearing. >> based upon some of the comments made at the last hearing that is correct. the legal aspects of the case are quite clear in terms what is in the code and what isn't. i believe what was not said, especially my myself at the hearing, the question was not so much the pure legality of the code, but the question of whether the man should have an

opportunity to work, and i believe that's where i was going. the question whether this is new information to me. it's not. i accepted what the police department said last time and i am prepared continue along the same lines as i voted last time. >> and i guess my -- i'm trying to recall the last hearing where i was here and my issue was with the proof of the conviction, and i'm looking at what was submitted with the rehearing request, and i am -- well, i am inclined to grant the rehearing, but on the merits again i would again ask that we have proper documentation -- certified documentation of a proper conviction if that is the basis for the revocation of the permit so that would be my only

comment, but i would be incline to grant the rehearing. >> further comments from commissioners? if not is there a motion? >> move to grant the rehearing. >> maybe we should specify a deet for that motion when the rehearing would take place. my recommendation is march 20. i know that is out of a day but if you look at the matters before then it's quite a long time. i mean there are many matters on the board's calendar. >> if that's acceptable to the rest of the commissioners i would specify to be referred on march 20. >> i'm actually leaning towards the way commissioner fung has mentioned having the gentleman hold his license and maintain

his job and his family is what i am actually leaning towards. >>i would point out that is not a factor under the city's ordinance. what is of significance, and the only thing that is relevant under the city's ordinance whether or not there was a conviction of four years of the application for the permit. >> thank you for the clarification. >> i think it's also the case here, and the criteria for rehearing is whether there is new evidence. >> okay. so there's a motion on the floor then to grant the rehearing and rehear the matter on march 20. is that correct? okay. barring any further commissioner comments we will call the roll. >> so on that motion from commissioner lazarus to grant this rehearing request and to schedule the rehearing for march 20. on that motion vice president fung. >> no. >> president hwang is absent.

commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> no. >> thank you. the vote is two-two to grant this rehearing. the rules require four votes to grant a rehearing so absent another motion this rehearing request would be denied and the notice of decision and order shall issue. >> okay. >> next case. >> item five is withdrawn and will not be withdrawn this evening so we will move to six. warren mcgrath & mark goldstein versus the department of public works and bureau of street use and mapping. the subject property is at 2300 33rd avenue and nextg networks of california inc. now crown castle personnel

wireless service facility site permit. and we will start with the appellants. is the appellant in the room? okay. the appellants are not in the room. mr. qan, could you step forward for a minute. it's my understanding that the appellants didn't participate in the hearing officer's hearing. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. so commissioners how would you like to proceed? would you like to hear from the permit holder who is here? >> let's go ahead with that. >> okay. >> thank you vice president fung

and commission commissioners. i am here on behalf of crown castle which i will be leaving shortly to go into private practice and i want to take this moment to say i enjoyed my time before the board of appeals the last years and have quite respect for the board including the staff who has been courtesy and professional. the site that is here is been in existence since 2007 and was constructed under the utilities conditions permit that was issued by the city at that time. this was before article 11. 9b and well before article 25. during this process of article 25 we have come back for a permit under article 25. the application was submitted complaint to the city meeting each of the steps including getting the sign off from the department of public

health that the admissions from the antenna which is located on 33rd avenue are so low that they would not exceed the fcc standards even when somebody was in direct proximity to it. we are always sensitive to concerns of residents concerning health effects which is why we offer to go into the home with engineers to do any type of testing. in this situation the perceived health effects was raced at protest level. the protester didn't show at the hearing and then we saw this appeal where health effects were again mentioned. we would be happy to go into the resident's home but that request has not been made, but if it is we will do that. as you know under federal law,

under section 332c7b of the telecommunications act local jurisdictions are prohibited from making determinations based on perceived health effects of radio frequency and in this situation we also do have the department of the health showing this is very much equivalent of having a wi-fi router or cordless phone in the house and has radio frequency but at low levels and given we have complied with article 25 in applying for this permit we respectively request that the board deny the hearing and allow the public works to fully issue this permit going forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. quan.

>> good evening commissioners. john quan from the department of public works. the department doesn't really have additional to add as it relates to what the applicant has provided. all we can state that we did follow the process as prescribed under article 25 of the public works code. in the process of this permit with a lot of processes notification was given. we received objection. there was a hearing and final determination was made based on that hearing and we do not believe procedurally there were any errors by the department. thank you. >> is there any public comment? is there any rebuttal? okay. commissioners. >> do we need to offer the department rebuttal? >> we can. do you anything further to add? okay.

>> commissioners? >> i think given that the appellant has not appeared, and we have no brief in support of that position i think our only option here is to deny the appeal for the reasons stated in ms. nernst brief. >> is there a motion commissioner? >> yes, and i would move to deny the appeal for those reasons. >> so we have a motion then from scmr hurtado to deny this appeal and up hold the permit as stated for the reasons in the brief. >> they didn't submit a brief -- >> i'm sorry. >> at the testimony. >> well, based on the brief. >> she didn't submit a brief either. >> you're right. for the testimony given. >> okay. for the reasons

stated at hearing by the permit holder's agent attorney. on that motion to deny and up hold vice president fung. >> aye. >> president hwang is absent. commissioner ann lazarus. >> aye. >> and it commissioner honda. >> aye. >> this permit is up hold for those reasons. >> thanks calling item seven bay view office for community planning versus the department of building inspection, planning department approval. the property is at 2065 oakdale avenue protesting the issuance on october 11, 2012 for permit to alter a building and existing main building to remain. application number is listed and

we will start with the appellant 's representative. >> [inaudible] >> you have seven minutes. >> very good. good evening. i am dan dot. good evening commissioners. thank you for hearing this. i am a resident and business owner in the bay view district and here for the bay view office group and offering project monitoring. i believe you had the opportunity to review the brief that i have sent. the project is located at 2065 oakdale avenue in san francisco, a largely residential area. i believe that is on the board. largely residential area that has some pdr and m1 areas nearby. the argument we

present today hinges on two questions. is it simple alteration or remove afl a portion of a buildings similar to removing a deck or shed, versus was this a full demolition of a building. in this case two structures requiring a permit for application, notification, back review, and grading details and soil removal. the information and facts i will present that a full demolition occurred on the property despite the project application that was erroneous. we that the applicant did this when the building demolishes and enjoyed a cultural resource, the signage in the process of the work and disregarded two violations at the interior of the existing building and the construction of a non permitted

sign despite -- fence despite motion to stop work. in light of this i am requesting that the retroactive revocation of the form eight application and the alteration permit and a requirement that the applicant file a full form six demolition permit. the applicant will attempt to cloud the reality with plans from the building of 1963, water bills, claims of water soils which do not exist. they will blame the zoning administrator, his travel schedule and various other things. i ask you to focus on the issues here. i do concede that your decision maybe influenced by that the

buildings are destroyed and removed from the site but the questions are valid and they justify your action to revoke the permit. there is a letter of determination by scott sanchez of april 2012 and the intended use for the property. the same applicant through the attorneys outline the buildings in question "3,000 of accessory space exists above a loading dock adjacent to the space there is 4,000 square foot building period. the cooler maybe removed. a warehouse is adjacent to the cooler". clear. three structures on the site. there is no mention of the building demolition with the planning department with the existing structures on the property. exhibit two in the package it shows two stores of occun