>> i want to concur as well. there's in my district on this list there are scores of in law units where you have whole families living in a single in law unit. we know that realty is there are people living there and the reeled in my district there are people who can't afford to pay their mortuary. it's not permitted. i think the city needs to figure out how we can understand how to create flexibility in our districts so we can maintain housing that's affordable for the property owners and other folks who couldn't pay their mortuaries. it's not always about making extra money.

so i know it's not just this district this property we're looking at taking a fee from its the other properties as well. i'm kind of hard-pressed to figure out which ones in my district are having the problems here. we have to have this item approved by the end of this year? how does that work >> supervisor avalos to the president i would have the staff from the department of building inspection answer the question. >> well, this was in 2008 i was the inspector. wife been working with ms. roberts and it's difficult for her to legalize those. we've been in contact with here

as far as remedying the situation. she's been to the appeal board and they concurred. we're more than willing to get the issues resolved >> there's that and there's like a score of buildings in, you know, single-family homes in my district that are on here that actually have an in law in them where, you know, people are getting a fee and - i'm wondering do we have to have this today or come back in a month and perhaps taking off fees. >> we can take the item off the calendar for today. we actually want to legallize it but we're more than happy to

meet with ms. robert and walk her through the process. i agree there's plenty of units in the city >> right and i don't think it's the matter of making the building like it was before we'd be casting out thousands of people in san francisco which makes no sense. but i think as a city i know my colleagues have been working on this issue president chiu and my office as well are figuring out how to have some neglect so we're not setting up people to get cast out of their homes. so we're helping them to maintain their property >> this is has an an ongoing

issue and it would be great to see a solution in san francisco. >> i want to add to d b i i've been in a group working on this there's a meeting in a week and a half and they will be raising an issue you can come too. what many of us agree is perhaps not the best way to handle the reality. supervisor campos >> thank you mr. president, and d b i staff and to my colleagues are that i think it make sense for us to hold-off on voting on the entire item until we have more information regarding all properties that a fall within the category.

>> maybe i should ask are there other units or line items on this lengthy list that are involved in those situations? >> without having the case in front of me i can't comment. we are more and more willing to pull the item and have the remaining items sfoeth. and we'll look at the items at o a more convenient time >> that's sort of the concern. but thank you for that clarification >> i get a lot of calls from people who have issues with d b i and i understand d b i's situation those are all issues we care about but those are on

the list because they come with great frequency to my 0 office. i'm wondering if we can continue this item not getting it done today and continue back in september >> can you identify yourself. >> i'm with the code enforcement d b i. if i could say we're happy to go through each and every item and work with our staff and if there's any property that is remotely involved with the conversation we're having but we'd appreciate if you'd approve the other items number. and someone in public comment said there was a review of the properti said we were a

little bit having too many fees but if we were to hold-off on all items it would he'd the inspection to the report. i'd like to have the list today approved and we'll remove southern items and we'll be happy to go through those with you >> i'd remove those after the fact? we're just approving overall and the items won't be impacted? >> when you take the vote there are be a day or two we'll adjust any addresses there are confusion about so when the final list is agreed upon only the remaining items remaining

after we clarify which would include removing the allowable units we'll have a better list. but you wouldn't impede the process so we'll have the properties you're not concerned about on the ballot in september >> we will horrify i'd be open to removing those items shortly and a - >> we'd appreciate that. >> is there a reason why if we get this done in the week of september that's not enough time to get this going your deadline about november. >> i believe the cut off-line is in august. i will send our report over to

the recorders office around mid-august and we - we can go back and remove any illegal issues >> are you able to identify the in law units. >> yes. >> one thing i might suggest as part of the resolution that we adopt language that says that the board of supervisors says they'll remove the fees to the in law units we don't know particularly but that maybe a way to resolve that and maybe someone will make a motion. supervisor yee >> actually, i was going to make the same suggestion we

amend the motion inform delete from the list any in law unlts that the department would identify in the next few days so i concur with you. >> so supervisor yee made a motion and i'd like to ask the city attorney - if i could ask you what's the property language to capture the intent we're not making a policy decision but on this particular list we want to remove those units that are in-laws. >> john. if it's okay with you i'd like to discuss with the department maybe during the break while the department is meeting with various property owners and could came back and advise whether that's a viable language and when the department comes back >> let's continue.

>> i want to let you know there's a few properties on this list i'd like to say let's remove. >> thank you supervisor. >> just a point i'm not sure unless you're able to identify the properties that are excluded from those lists you could move forward to that and that's a question to the city attorney's office. there are property we need to move forward maybe we identify those. i'm trying to figure out what's doable >> let's say that the city attorney caucus and the public when you are done we'll take up those items later than in this meeting. okay with that why don't we go

to our second 3:00 p.m. order madam clerk call items 54 to 61 >> a special order at 3:00 p.m. for persons who are looking at the planning project located at the 4016 california street is exempt under the california quality act and the planning commissions approval of a conditional use authorization at the 3216 address on all 16 that this property is requires a conditional use authorization. the motions associated awe affirming the clerk to provide finding are part of this special

hearing >> thank you madam clerk. on today's calendar there are two items where we want to install a wireless system containing 9 antennas within a ground floor medical service building. first tlrns there's an appeal from the environmental review and second there's a conditional use authorization. the issues on each appeal are different. our planning commissions review under the california quality act sequa announced the adequacy and completeness of the examinations. this is a legislation hearing and to over turn needs 6 votes of this board. our consideration of the appeal

of the use authorization involves an analysis whether the planning commissions determination was appropriate. the second hearing is quasi and we're required to afford the project sponsor due process to over turn the authorization of the continual condition 8 votes of the board are required. while into need the consideration and the members of the public who wish to speak and the consideration of the patents my suggestion is we condolences hearings. the public planning department and sponsor each receive a fair opportunity to address the appeals. first, the pales will have up to

fourteen minutes to peel and next the members of the public meaning i request the board to regret the project may speak up to 2 minutes. we ask the speakers address the progress. we'll have 15 minutes to address the analysis and for first year itutrization of the plan unit development. the real project sponsor in this case is at&t will have up to 15 minutes for the environmental review and a for the use authorization and then we'll hear from the members of the public that support the environmental review and the approval of the ice authorization may speak up to 2 minutes. again, we ask the speakers to

identify the particular peel and then we'll hear from the sponsors up to 4 minutes and the appeal of the conditional use 30 years. now all parties can divide their time within their sectors as they feel fit. on conclusion we'll determine the examinations from the peel we'll consider whether to affirm or overturn. first are there any objections to preceding in this way? oh. okay in order for us to combine hearing wre we need 0 motion.

supervisor farrell and supervisor mar second it. and let me ask i know there are two supervisors that bored this site any comments? seeing none, why don't we move first to the 15 presentation from the appellants and a good morning. i'm doug appearing on behalf of the appellants. i live about one block away. given the serious safety issues raised by this particular project in this particular location i have to say in my 13 years of working on the site of wireless facilities in every district in san francisco this is by more the most egregious example that have i've seen agencies bending over be

background to operate a wireless facility on a building that doesn't prolong. and in light of the grand jury report which speaks of preferential treatment and inconsistent in his building codes i have to say that the planning departments position is those position are best addressed by d b i is not particularly reassuring. so let's take a look at that property. it is a building between supervisors district 1 and 2. 67 property owners representing over 40 percent of the property area within a 40 foot radius

subscribe to those appeal. in 2006 at&t installed a two antenna micro facility and nobody received the notice and nobody had the right to contest is because this board didn't pass an ordinance until 2007. in 2010 almost three years ago at&t applied for the court instructs the jury use to upgrade this to a 9 macro facility. then in march 2011 without the required i condition of the building permits at at the went ahead and started to install it's macro equipment on the roof. one the dentists in the building

filed a complaint. in october 2012 almost a year and a half later they held a director's meeting in which at&t said forgot about our ongoing site we're about to get a permit so let's move it from the roof to a ground floor to which d b i respond go ahead. there's two problems here. first, the 1976 soft story wood building is not up to current building codes for seismic sate. the technical engineer who has 50 years experience was to view the site. the drs. comment was no at&t was

to be permitted on the roof without a complete seismic upgrade of the this. so in the absence of a service upgrade is a skeptic issue that was referred to in the previous hearing. the second problem although this application has been in the pipeline for 3 years until residents brought it to their attention both at&t and the city planning department overlooked that was identified as prone to flooding or was prone to flooding. so it appears prior to the june meeting at&t also waved it's

magic one day over the department of public works. one day before the planning commission hearing stated this block is no longer prone to flooding. now should we ask the grand jury to look to d b w. why is potential flooding at this location an issue. contrary to at&t would have you believe while it's important to say this has batteries it is highly unusual to place those batteries in a known flood area. this is because the equipment at&t seeks to include has a lady

and acid problems. according to our sequa appeal, in fact, con tooedz seeds this issue on page 5. the release of electric light sewage is likely. this is precisely the threshold for sequa review we've repeatedly sited. led acid battery may have an inadverse effect but the planning department contorts the language of sequa saying the risk of such an occurrence is not significant or unusually it's not the risk that maybe released into the

environment but rather it's the posh effect of the release of acid solution that must be significant. for sequa review to be required there need be only a reasonable possibility that there are unusual circumstances. i should add the planning department appears f to be operating in a you thought where it's alicia in wonderland logical. we routinely approve those facilities therefrom therefore we have to approve this facility. the ground floor of this facility was flooded with 18 inches of water after a water sewage pipeline break.

residents hired a second expert epa spent and the conclusion was at a minimum an initial study mitigated declarations is required to address those o how those hoozs will be determined. in the last minute classification they said that the sewer line was replaced in 2007. he's on the record of saying while the sewer upgrade may reduce the odds it doesn't eliminate the posh of a 2006 flood which is logical that no one can predict the storms and

earthquakes or cumulation of things in the sewer. it raise seismic safety issues and at&t should not be allowed to put things on the ground floor because of the history of flooding and with safety issues they will be referred to in the words a common per certification is the order of the day. under the city's guidelines this site is a preference 6 locations and they're to list all the possible alternatives. in response at&t has provided 6 photographs of why they won't

work, however, consistent with the cookie cutter approach with its attitude toward the residents concerns for their own safety at&t has not examined all the alternatives and has failed to meet its burdens of the cities guidelines. here's the photograph of the current at&t application. the south side of california street dribble across the street from the significant property. this photograph was taken when at&t filed their application in 2010. compare this 3 beyond a reasonable doubt photo which is this photo of page of the exhibits that the appellants provided. this is the condo from 2016 site

it's completely absent from at&t photographs. this new building is significantly taller than the site and therefore, huh? hover i cared with the owner at&t has never pursued this as at&t is required to do under the guidelines. at&t is also provided no evidence it has considered a described wireless system on light poles. by failing to meet the requirements of the cities requirement guidelines and failing to demonstrate it's all possible alternatives this board can and show overturn the

decision and deny this permit for 2016 california street. under the planning code on this district wireless facilities are denied in section 70.90 that prurient to another section they must be located within an imposed building in and out on a roof as at&t says. at&ts attorney says this planning code carves out a special section and i quote the city has an entire code for facilities are allowed outside and then sites a unconsistently code. what he's refer to say section of article 25 of the san

francisco peculiar code which only governors codes on light and light poles. it does appear for the last 17 years the city's codes have been at odds. and it's the controlling authority from the landmark sixth court metro vs. 71 of san francisco which or gaited in those very chambers of a wireless facility which like the present case was property for the richmond district but the 9th sixth was not only in favor of the city but the district court resulted that it had demonstrated the significant g