>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, june 11, 2014, meeting of san francisco board of appeals the preceding officer is the board vice president or sell and she's joined by supervisor frank functioning. to my left is deputy city attorney ryan he'll provide the board with legal advice and at the controls is legal assistant and i'm cynthia goldstein absent is the board president commissioner president lazarus and we have cases before the board mr. sanchez represents the

planning commission and we will be joined by mr. duffey representing the building inspection and the public works of street use and mapping mr. pa check connect the swearing in process. please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices please carry on conversations in the hallway permit holder and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present their cases and people affiliated with those parties must include their comments within the 7 minutes and people not affiliated with the parties have up to 7 minutes to address the board but inform rebuttals to assist the board members of the public are asked but not required to submit a

speaker card or business card when you come up to the podium and speaker cards are pencils are available and the board welcomes our comments and there are customer survey forms on the left side of the podium if you have questions board sweltered please speak to the board staff or call the board office tomorrow morning it's located at 1650 mission street this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv xabl cable channel 78 and dvds are available for the purpose thank you for your attention at this point we'll conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony please raise your hand

please note that any member of the public may speak without giving the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. thank you, mr. pa check and commissioners we have one houses keeping item appeal 175 regarding an alleviation case that is withdrawn item number one is general public comment anyone who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's calendar item two questions or comments commissioners seeing none. item 3 is the consideration of the boards minutes of the meeting of june 4th, 2014, my

additions or corrections? okay. i would move to adapt the minutes. thank you is there any public comment on the minutes please call the roll. >> on that motion from the vice president to adapt the june 4th, 2014, minutes. commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. councilmember davis is absent commissioner honda thank you the vote it 4 to zero those minutes are adapted >> item 4 is the jurisdiction the subject property on progress street the board received a letter requester asking the board talking control over thees vacation issued by the public works and the appeal period evident and this jurisdiction was filed at the office on

may 20th the permit holder is sf engineering to install a new cabinet we can start with the requester whether mr. occurring major you have 3 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm steve. i'm a resident of the crocker amazon district and the former president of the association. i applied that jurisdiction because dpw failed to invite me and the neighborhood of the per diem excavation permit issued on june june 4th i was invited 10 days past the appeals date dpw reissued thees vacation permit due to the remiss in those being

invited. the reporters lawyers from at&t said the city not caused the late appeal at the failed to invite me or the neighbors of the permit. the respondent stated that dpw is not required to invite my obtain take care that there is anes vacation permit that's not true the agencies give the residents the opportunity to come in and participate in the issues related to neighborhood and concerns therefore dpw failed to invite us of the permit therefore the respondent accuses myself of learning the permit issuance and the respondent argues i offered no i find of the evidence that dpw caused me to file the appeal 4 weeks late. the members of the service

mounted facility group asked dpw to invite me after the fact they're to blame for the late notification. in my brief i copied in the exhibit an e-mail that was sent to me apologizing for my convenience that was due to me. additionally mr. gene chang i spoke to at the at dpw divorced their group to pay the $150 filing fee due to their intentional inare inadvertent to be invited of thees vacation permit i ask you the board of appeals jurisdiction of this item to wave the filing fee i've paid the filing media fee of the may 2ndndes vasectomy fee or

repay me the filing fee >> mr. occurring major you august with the may 2nd permit was you subsequentially the same as the 04. >> it's exactly the same in thees vacation permits says the director of dpw at my time could withdraw the permit i feel the april 4th permit was dropped and the may 2nd was reissued i filled the appeal on the may 2nd permit thank you commissioner fung. >> okay mr. johnson. >> good evening commissioner hurtado and the board of commissions on may 2nd the

honorable just of the san francisco superior court issued a mandate in the city and county of san francisco avoiding this board decision in appeal number 11 dash 004. that appeal is dental to the facts of the this evenings appeal in the crown castle case the appellants filed their appeal past the deadline and the respondents argued they should be granted their request requests and the department of public works should have a wireless facility permit despite the fact that dpw had no legal obligation to do that this board granted their jurisdiction request and just gold smith elevated that and his order specifically held that dpw was under no legal obligation for

the permit application i quote the lack of notice was not grounds for on untimely appeal crown castle is 0i7b8 to this appeal at&t's appeal was granted and weeks after the mandatory 15 day jurisdiction deadline and mr. occurring our as notd not identified my code rigging dpw for thees vacation permit. in those circumstances the board lacks jurisdiction to grant the late appeal it's excess if it do d did so, so the request should be denied. >> thank you. >> thank you. we, hear from the department now commissioner

fu fung. >> good evening john from the san francisco department of public works the individual whose who's requesting the request they were not invited by department as it relates to the permit it was approved on employed 4, 2014 after at&t's request as it relates to quiz that was a small visitation to the public is the posting of no parking toe away signs 72 hours prior to construction that's the requirement under the department of public works code. i can't season whether there was a request for the information i

can by talking to mr. chang and others was that when we were requested for the information we provided it to them after the appeal period the 15 day appeal period as he required by the board to based on that information the only recourse we see from the parks prospective is ask the individual to request jurisdictional requests in order to reinitiate the appeal process and timing that's all the information i can provide >> two questions. one is why was this permit rae issued >> excuse me. >> iowa's why was the permit reissued on may 2nd it's the same permit number. >> that i'm not sure about.

one of the things that is within the our database is when we provide a permit status change the system automatically adjusts itself so if we take it from a paragraphed status it takes the latest approval date and places it on the permit itself even though the original permit was approved at an earlier date >> what happened. >> that i'm not sure. >> second question was refresh my memory i understand about a mirrores vacation permit that applies to many things. this permit is part of the at&t light speed project that has

other layers of protocol due to the mou and thing is there any, no, sir, requirements in there >> the initial visitation as it relates to at&t's agreement with the city and the mounted facilities is the original posting necessity indication we'll hold a hearing to gather input from the public to determine whether the site is appropriate for place of employment once that's determined a decision is render and if the decision is affirmative attica apply for an constellation facility pilot it's that on the approval that

triggers the appeal period. >> right but the only notification is for the site permit. >> that's correct. >> thank you. any public comment on that item? please step forward >> hello. thank you for letting me speak i'm one of the several people that oppose this site. i was in e-mails and communication with dpw regarding that and they sent me an e-mail saying you'll be modified when the permit was i didn't know

anything was happening until i got a notification that construction was beginning i started to came back dpw and at&t and everybody on that company so but i do have an e-mail from dpw stating that if a permit is issued we'll be notified and that's everybody in opposition nobody was notified i'll end it with that thank you very much >> do you have a copy of the e-mail. >> i didn't bring it it's on any cell phone i apologize i did not think i was going to be able to speak it's on any cell phone. >> can you put it on the overhead. >> it's an iphone. >> can you put that on the

overhead? >> the screen just went off victor. oh, right how is that. where you going tonight >> there's quite a huge

(inaudible) can i step do you thing this is the same thing. >> can you just are you able to take and scroll at the same time. >> sure. >> i have a question. if you could stand by the mike >> i apologize. >> so there's a group of people opposing. >> 6 people to be notified i have a petition of over 25 but 6 people filed and on that notice sorry. we it went out to each and every one of us we would get notified >> when you say filed what. >> not filed we sent or correspondence or not filing but stating our objections and went

to the hearing. >> do you remember the timing and the response of the e-mail? it was prior to april 4th >> oh, yeah. it looks like it's marked was happening okay. go ahead and find the e-mail please. pardon me. >> find the e-mail. >> it's not marked okay. trying to pull this one up there's 50 communications maybe i'm exaggerating communications between us if not - no >> okay. >> that one was not it.

>> why don't you take our time i want to ask john quan a question from the department. >> sure. >> question is is it the practice of dpw to send out e-mails or correspondence letting them be notified for anes vacation permit. >> if the individual requests specifically or a location or a more specific type of permit and, you know, if it's to be issued please be they wanted to be cracked we'll provide a level of effort to provide them that information in a timely manner. >> is there a disclosure of a service or is that guaranteed to

happen? i mean is it similar to someone pete's puts money down and requires that anything happens to that property n >> in this case that's a request to accommodate but those maybe situations that we might run into a situation invesical not been able to invite an plant. >> are they assuming that it's an automatic guarantee? i mean, that's because as the public you come in and the department says that we're, you know, going to give you a call they take that as a matter of fact but it should be disclosed this is simply a occurscy >> you're correct we never stated this was a courtesy. >> thank you.

>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item while we wait? >> how much time do you want to give her? >> mr. quan is pointing. >> (inaudible). >> can you go back to the microphone, please. >> he will dpw will let everyone when anes vacation

permit is for this and this is dated february 19th. >> could you put it on the overhead police are you reading it from the overhead or from our phone; right? it's on the piece of paper is that something different? >> no. >> okay. >> can i bring it okay - >> can you imagine victor. >> i'm so sorry. >> that's okay. you read it so. >> put it up higher. >> thank you thanks. >> mr. sanchez can you scroll it down so i can see the date

and the address people february 19th okay. >> can everyone see that. >> okay. thank you. thanks. thank you >> thank you. >> okay commissioners the matter it submitted. >> anyone want to start? >> commissioners, i think there's two things one is that they will have their day in july 16th basically, it's the same issue i don't know what to do with the funding they'll have to deal with the department the

second thing i guess and i would then based on that be inclined to not grant jurisdiction this this stance and thanks for the brief on the other thing i think next time when we state our rational for that taking jurisdiction it will not be based on lack of notice. >> i agree i would it doesn't appear to be required it's a courtesy notice that's the problem we're having the public is lead to 0 building it's crown castle seems to indicate judge goldsmith says unless it's a followeral kind of notice it's not a base for filing a late

appeal unfortunately. >> i don't think i feel the same way the city invesical lead the public to have a reasonable expectation to have notice of the appeal and whether they're required to file it or not the doing so i think lead at least of people including the appellant either the requester to building they'll get the notice and did not i don't think the cases are similar for that reason. >> my concern i think that as our president can charge now according to the judge notification is not a

requirement although as my fellow commissioner stated i think it was the expectation of the public to be notified and there's no disclosures this is a courtesy e-mail so i. leon to the fellow commissioner. >> now that i think about it i've been procured by my mel fell commissioners it doesn't bear the facts are different in crown castle i'll move to grant the jurisdiction requests for the city invesical failings to

notify. >> on that motion commissioner fu fung. commissioner hwang. the president is absent. commissioner honda the vote is 4 to zero and the jurisdiction is granted and the appellant has 5 days to appeal this coming monday >> item 5 is two jurisdiction questions q requests on 9th street requester asking that the board take jurisdiction overbuilding permits which were both issued on may 20th it end on may 2nd and those jurisdiction requests were filed on may 3rd the permit holder is

stanley to demolish a one story warehouses to a rectified residential building with one commercial unit. >> commissioner upon advise from the city attorney i am in a business relationship with the permit holder and i anticipate being in contract with them shortly i'm asking to be recu d recused. yeah. yeah i'm recuseing >> commissioners, don't we usually hearing hear it. >> yeah. i think we should precede. the requester please step forward >> so ms. brison the end and the permittee holder as well with the missing commissioner,

if there's are 3 votes and the commissioners voting rights vote we'll allow the missing commissioner a change to vote. >> good evening i don't think i'm going to need all 6 minutes i'm not gag going to take up more time then needed i'm jackie brison first of all, i want to thank donald duffey with providing me with the actual code pertaining to what i'm going to talk about you know how to read there's no reason to recap what's writing down. what i elapsed from having dealt with the gentleman in the past and having had other jurisdictional requests once a building peit