[inaudible]. lisa duncan. heather po lard, [inaudible] ashland per, mr. and mrs. morales, [inaudible] mathue lou, marisa [inaudible] (reading names off list). thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. i am bridgette kanter. i am bruno's story. i would like to. >> >> sister: i would like to read a letter opposite the

appellates. from the lees. this is a letter for qualified support for the residential reconstruction at 312 green street. we have always assumed this small bungalow would be remodeled with an additional story. we have seen the expansions of the properties to the east of 312 green at 310 and 308 green street. the construction will have significant impact on the property but on balance we support it because the owners, bruno and suzanne kakter worked with us to mitigate the impacts and the light well and common roof deck would result from any expansion of the property. we have been meeting with them over the past year and they have been to our home to observe and discuss the concerns. their latest plans respect and

mitigate our concerns to the extent possible given they're adding two floors to the building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a neighborhood friend, long time friend of bruno and a homeowner in north beach and being here today brings back memories when i had a distressed property i was trying to make changes to and the last meeting where they had the unanimous decision there was a mixed feeling and sigh of relief and now you're on to the next step and the eir was the next delay tactic and i wasn't surprised and similar to the steps i went through bringing my property back to life. fortunately we were able to complete this project and bruno is able to do because with north beach more of the middle class workers are pushed out of the neighborhood

with the rising rental and home costs so when i heard bruno was able to buy a property after saving money and being here i was thrilled to know he would be here with his new child and his wife and brings his parents in and what north beach is based on and the extended family and to see the delay tactics to take away from the family and chaos is crazy. especially with this neighbor. i was there for a holiday party on green street and i heard the rukt us going on and what was going on out there and she was harass because of a parking issue and they can't be happy in their own neighborhood and to me it's greed. he doesn't live full time in san francisco and full time heldalds burg and visits occasionally.

>> i am the homeowner. this has been a journey and i for over three years. >> can you move down the mic so we can hear you. >> we have followed all of the processes and meetings with the neighbors and making concessions to them. we hoped to be in the house now with our infant daughter. i had a daughter in this process and the process what moved on and on while the remaining appeal is resolved and today's decision and we thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak at this time? okay. with that we are going to move forward and ask the appellant for a rebuttal. you will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you madam president and supervisors. i think what

you're seeing today is a fairly stark difference in narratives about what's happened. the project sponsor has done a pretty good job of crafting a narrative that is not kriet right, not quite what happened on this block. for example there is discussion about changes to accommodate neighbors but most of the changes, the significant once were required by the planning department as part of the residential design process. the letter of support read was noted a letter of qualified support because there were special accommodations made for one particular property that has not been engaged with the other neighbors. we have spoken with the immediate neighbors of this property. you will receive or have received in the last couple of days a number of letters from them but my understanding is they are feeling intimidated because of

the character attacks, adhomium attacks directed at the appellant here and mentioned in the discretionary hearing. a discussion about bringing big guns was a discussion about lawyers and for that to be brought up and used again and again simply is not fair and not how we do things in san francisco. there are serious unusual environmental circumstances pertaining to this property. perhaps most notably from the geotechnical report which was not sulfur by the planning report or department and will have impacts on the neighbors. >> interesting enough the only structural engineer is myself. no one from the project sponse or planning has looked at it. doesn't it seem strange that

the only person talking about rebuilding the building is myself. it is a demolition. the plans show it as a demolition. you cant take a two story building and i can show you this around the city and deconstruct it to make a four story building. under the code the walls have to be redone and you can't do that without deconstructing the first and second wall. it also requires the foundation be removed. the roof is being removed. the original permit in 1907 which is a very, very early reconstruction period building. wood frame buildings weren't built until 06 and this was one of the first once rebuilt is including the removal of the second floor. there is nothing left of the building and it is a demolition and

should be sulfur like that. >> >> thank you. this is now in the hands of the board of supervisors. we have these items before us. supervisor christensen from the district would you like to make comments at this time? >> yes please madam president. it pains to have in my first board meeting to look at an issue that involves two neighbors arguing with one another. i regret that. north beach certainly is a neighborhood and one person can't roll over without affecting the person next to them and it's seldom possible to make changes to the properties in the neighborhoods without having impacts on others. i regret the acmoney that developed between the neighbors

is likely to color the relationship going forward. i always think that is unfortunate to be in a position living next door to someone you had a war and i hope at some future date for both your sakes bigones can be bigones. when there are questions of this type we turn to guidelines>> >> and we have learned what to expect and allows us to predict other people's actions as well as plan our own. the building building department has done that and everything up to now has affirmed that. with that said i have seen all over the

neighborhood people go further than those regulations allow in order to accommodate their neighbors needs and in order to maintain good will for those around them. from what i have seen the project sponsor has made some good faith efforts to adjust his property to accommodate the needs of his neighbors. i recognize that for mr. oswald this change is not a positive one that your roof deck, your solar array will be impacted. the thing about the regulations and the codes is that is something that could be predicted based on what the city allows, and so to put a solar array where one day there could be a building slightly taller than yours probably deserved consideration. for our sake our

purview here is unfortunately not to determine whether mr. oswald's solar array should be able to operate or have use from his roof. our purview is whether or not the ceqa determination was accurate, and based on the information i have seen it was accurate and sufficient and complete so using ceqa in this case is difficult because it does not deal with the issues that matter most to you. we are limited to consideration of that topic, and there's nothing that i have heard today or from planning that indicates to me there is any failure in the ceqa review for this project so for myself i would support item 19 and the denial of the appeal of affirmation of the determination of the exemption. >> so supervisor christensen is that a motion to move forward with item number 19 and table

items 20 and 21? >> and any league com -- comments. >>

>> up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant with a pound representative and at this time, without objection will move forward and allow the appellant representative to speak. >> good afternoon. i'm the appellant dr. robert harris. i'll start with health issues. the planning commission did not properly apply the following sections of the planning code. section 303, condition [inaudible]. when not be detrimental to the health safety or welfare of persons right residing in this vicinity. in response to this, the final motion to the height

and bulk of the building accessibility, landscaping, they did mention preventing emissions. just fine, but smoking has been prohibited since 1980s. by this conditional use, we are referring to the unhealthy effects of the [inaudible]. the cigarettes [inaudible] e cigarettes containing nicotine and the [inaudible] in the basement. in 2008 the board of so supervisors unanimously passed and that the fine tobacco to [inaudible]. the language disorder and supports our position. it states, tobacco paraphernalia excusing -- it states the gold this organization establishment. and

related health safety and general welfare problems. in the city's commercial district. it defined tobacco paraphernalia to me devices that are designed for smoking or inhaling the products prepared from tobacco which includes nicotine. the san francisco department of public health has consistently warned about the harmful effects of each cigarettes is seen in your fact sheets. i can't read -- it contains [inaudible] increase nicotine addiction among young people. these products have not

been tested for safety or efficacy in helping people quit smoking. american cancer society heart association and american lung association have their statements expressing the increase of ink e cigarette marketing and use. those 23rd. 2014 from the department of public office and type of thing. electronic cigarettes are still awaiting regulation from the food and drug administration. there are no set standards for production or content. nicotine is a highly addictive since substance. and products you cigarettes have been tested positive for known tobacco-related carcinogens, toxic chemicals and heavy metals. the second hand there are so -- expand expose poses bystanders or hazardous chemicals are not the planning commission's final motion did not take into account these dr. mark judgment effects of the product [inaudible]. which

granted the new tobacco permits. we trust the water supervisors the board of supervisors will continue this tradition of protecting the health apply the same principles and make a ruling in this case in favor of the health and welfare of our residents. i would askthis graph shows cigarette consumption has been decreasing for 50 years maxis the surgeon general report of 1964. this decline is due to extensive public health measures including restrictions on advertising and sales. [inaudible]. he cigarettes are the new imac may be way for tobacco companies to come to the declining sales and

[inaudible] for the last 50 years. the use of visa credits or smoking cessation is unproved and he cigarettes are not recommended by [inaudible] for this purpose. [inaudible] january 5 states, the commission did not identify the situation for krugman [inaudible] so in this response i agree with the planning commission. the next life. the high concentration of tobacco outlets in our area may also adversely affect the health and welfare of our neighborhood. as shown [inaudible] the western half of ocean avenue has six businesses that sell businesses for which that so easy that's in a five block business. so highly impacted. i back there 37 tobacco districts in 37 [inaudible] and we all think we need another one.

>> caroling carols speaking for the appellant. the planning commission did not properly apply the general plan for the ocean avenue commercial district. the conditional use planning commission 303 states in part, the proposed use will serve the neighborhood in whole or significant part and will not adversely affect the master plan and will provide the element that is in conformity with the stated purpose of the applicable neighborhood commercial district. it's important to place this project within its physical and demographic context. that context must include the balboa park station plan which was signed into legislation in 2009 as an area plan within the san francisco general plan. the balboa plan was not included in the planning commission until two days before the november 6 commission hearing. president

[inaudible] commented she was the more time for people analysis of essential to planning commission were not great challenges for the neighborhood. the ocean avenue and ct extends from keelan avenue to manor drive. 1963 ocean avenue is at the western end of this. the single-family neighborhood of davidson manor is to the north of the avenue and to the south of [inaudible] cars appeared both limits of a high percentage of families and children under 18. they are ethnically and economically diverse neighborhoods surrounding -- district 7 and district 11. ocean avenue has undergone extensive study and review by city agencies and consultants from 2008-14. the focused study on something

would exist improving ocean avenue for the long-term. they point to development of a transit village with a vibrant commercial street that serves surrounding neighborhoods and encourages pedestrian traffic and has businesses that provide goods and services needed by the neighborhood residents. for the appeal process, the appellant elected supporting signatures from 90 percent of the residential property owners contacted within 300 feet. that's 33/36. this is consistent with the views of the over 100 unique and sincere letters submitted supporting the appeal and opposing the bakeshop and hookah lounge. the area studied question residence at the balboa park plan stated that a successful san francisco neighborhood offers a full point of retail stores conveniently located so local residents can shop everyday goods without relying on automobiles. residents have expressed their desire to mike

ocean avenue when 20 years without a bank grocery store or hardware store and recently chased bank and a wonderful heart sort of moved in. these are the types of businesses residents would like. at the planning commission hearing commissioner richards questioned the context of the date paper shot in the he said, and i quote "i look at this block to mr. concentration of alternative lifestyle case toys business a good massage parlor walls tattoo parlors and and [inaudible] right across the street and you would add a deeper started i think my concern when i look at necessary and desirable or compatible businesses article depends on whether or not you are a smoker. compatible with contextual for me. i have a problem with this project and this 1900 block.".

commissioner richards voted against approval for this conditional use. the block is not the right context. the plot does have many desirable businesses use by neighbors. there's a 24 hour fitness restaurant.. a [inaudible] they a bike shop yoga shop to barbers. the plot does have six vacancies but that is not surprising considering there are 40 storefronts in that section of 1900 ocean avenue. an additional problem contributing to the vacancy rate was noted in the [inaudible] report. it appears "to be disinvestment on several property owners and conscious withholding of investment." >> thank you. at this time, we are taking public comment on speakers in support of the appeal. so, if there are members of the public who are here to support the appeal please come forward and line up to my left. you will have two minutes starting with the young

lady was standing first in line. >>good afternoon.my name is inga meyer and imperial express my strong opposition to the planning department decision to approve the [inaudible] and 1863 ocean avenue. as a homeowner homeowner and the bob davidson input and a parent of a first in the greater of, or slope scorpio this business would be completely inappropriate and profoundly humbled in the community in which is located. first, come very concerned about the impact of this business on children. 1963 ocean avenue is located within a few blocks of several schools including, dorsal school, [inaudible] middle school [inaudible] academy and the number of schools are closed but many students passed by 1963 ocean avenue on their way to and from the schools as

i've personally observed on numerous occasions as him often down on ocean avenue doing errands and going to yoga classes. a business or find smoking, whether traditional or e cigarettes as a happy activity as happy vapor would do is sending a very dangerous message to children. i also feel very strongly that the opening of a paper shop and hookah lounge in 1960. ocean avenue would be a step backwards in the effort to make ocean avenue business court or a more community and pedestrian friendly for resident degree the atmosphere and discouraging more appropriate and desirable business. the neighborhoods in sore need of more businesses that need the day-to-day needs of its residents. i'd also like to note that a time when many families are fleeing san francisco for a variety of quality-of-life issues, that

the board of supervisors should be doing everything within its power to retain families by promoting better quality of life in the city's residential community. ocean avenue has much potential to blossom into a vibrant >> thank you ma'am next speaker please. >> i'm irene krebs and i would bet [inaudible] for the last 45 years. as i have some evidence i've read i guess the new york times and there is some evidence that shows that e cigarettes are not completely safe. for example, a clinical cancer research study found that the vapor from e cigarettes damages human cells in much the same way as the smoke from

traditional cigarettes. that was from the consumer reports. april, 2014. then a ucsf study found that adolescents who use e cigarettes are more likely to smoke regular cigarettes and less likely to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes. now, i have a 10-year-old grandson who lives with me. many of my neighbors have young children. we would like to see in the neighborhood 1900 block of ocean avenue is just around the corner from us. we like to see such shops as a bike shop where [inaudible] is at two bikes and the fog lifter which is a wonderful restaurant. you should come sometime. these kinds of businesses. they really help to meet our needs as a community. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next are please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. i am roger there a resident of del valle balboa terrace which is nearby the poser location. i support the appeal for the following reasons: first the 1900 block on the south side of ocean avenue is actually a thin commercial strip at the edge of the vibrant residential neighborhood. there is a pedestrian passageway that runs through the center of the plot. it connects ocean avenue to albano drive. it facilitates easy access to angle side terraces to adjacent residential neighborhood. so instead of thinking of this as part of the ocean avenue commercial block what this really is is a residential neighborhood that has businesses at one ad unit and its impact at the far western edge of this particular commercial strip. we have talked about a residential neighborhood not a business neighborhood. second, recent legislation passed unanimously by the board last month limits

tobacco sales which includes e cigarettes. this legislation shows that the board is well aware of the health risks caused by these products. i would submit respectfully submit that it's inconsistent with the policy to improve and e cigarette outlet that's actually right on top of a residential neighborhood. finally, the findings of the planning commission are, with all due respect to them not well taken. the proposed shop is neither necessary, desirable or compatible with the neighborhood. it will be detrimental to the health safety were convenience or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. last it will adversely impact the health safety and welfare of residents of the nearby area. so, for all the above reasons i respectfully urge the board to overturn the planning commission decision and to support