in his memory. >> all those in favor. opposed. we are adjourned. .

>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, august 12, 2015, of the san francisco board of appeals presiding officer is commissioner president ann lazarus and she's joined by commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig and commissioner bobbie wilson to my right is robert bryan the deputy city attorney and will provide the board with legal advice the clerk agreeing election i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the departmca

short and we'll be joined by scott sanchez the zoning administrator who represents the planning department and planning commission and joe duffy representing the department of electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium.

if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking

okay 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 very much okay interning to item one general public comment this is an opportunity for people to speak on an item within the board's jurisdiction any general public comment seeing none, then we'll move to item 2 comments from the commissioners commissioner. >> welcome back mr. bryan. >> okay item 3 commissioners our consideration of the minutes of the august 5, 2015, meeting any additions, deletions, or changes additions? may i have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> so moved. >> thank you any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then we have a

motion to do you want the minutes by the vice president commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that motion carries 4 to zero >> the next item on the calendar is item 4 a rehearing request subject properties on leavenworth street the board received a letter from the appellants requesting a rehearing of the appeal brand new bark versus dpw was decided at this time the board voted it is code compliant the appellant is the construction of a wireless service facility we'll start with the requesters you have 3 minutes to present our request to the board.

>> i'm randell next to me is ann brand nubaker dpw has authority to include a site permits in addition to those cigarette for the in the article 25 to benefit the public welfare this is, in fact, broad view to deny the permit based on the concerns over private views and lights the xifrpt is degrading to the public and adding more will make that worse whether or not the above was not discussed this needs to take place

>> go can we stand we stand by our earlier submission for a request for rehearing we have also recently reviewed the permit denials for 999 and 751 lombardi by the planning disorderly conduct 750 lombardi was recommended for denial for considerations awhile 2215 leavenworth is an excellent view it's permit was approved since 999 lombardi meets the agenda to deny the permit leavenworth meets the same criteria and should have been denied criteria for the two as excellent viewed streets has important culture and physical landmark views should be the same decisions were made in an

arrest warranty inapplicable manner it's been applied in a discrepancy they truth manifest injustice for leavenworth we believe a rehearing is warned new information regarding the physical safety the equipment on the 2215 leavenworth pole and who's responsible for the safety compliance needs review by the board of appeals the cpc u 95 allows the carriers self-monitoring privileges for example, tomcast continues to add their gear to the pole within the last month tomcast has doubled their presence now the next is 5 devices to the

pole the new across bar in the engineering speaking indicates the wires move further into the street view and closer to our home please note it is right here telecom pole can go unmonitored up to 8 years for the c pc u monitoring this over lagged pole has live wires within 8 feet of our home the city of san francisco has the authority to enter succeed we'd like the board of appeals to grant a new hearing based on this new information if you have any answers i object to answer them. >> commissioners the timer is not working at the moment we have 3 minutes but we'll skip

that for the next speaker. >> there are no questions. >> board okay. thank you. >> there's someone for the permit holder. >> if you'd like commissioners, i, use my cell phone for the timer. >> that's not a good sound. >> it's a fire alarm (laughter). >> all right. i will just time it myself and make the noise myself my apologies yeah. go ahead. >> good evening madam president and vice president and mbes i'm jim heard on behalf of the vertically wireless this board got to right the last time applied the correct standards and found the standards are met

i'd like to point out the rehearing is retired for rare case to prevent manifest injustice or new or different material facts that might have changed the outcome they don't address this in their papers or talk about it tonight they've not addressed it in any event they've clearly not met it the two arguments first, they complain about the advice the city attorney gave or not in the subsequent hearing this explicit pass the straight face test it makes no sense after the board decided the appeal has a bearing on the appeal that's all to be said except to point out the

record shows you you were given advise by your council decide the correct legal standards that apply to this appeal no merit to to they're first argument the second argument is completely new not mentioned in their appeal this should be the end of the appealed for due process i'll encourage that this board to dispense it is not proper to be raising completely new issues this late in the process even if you get over this hurdle they haven't met the standard for a new hearing first problem the geo95 the argument is not a city regulation only a c p u no

bearing on whether or not this was correctly issued the other problem is not based new facts but a regulation that was amended three years ago and fire that occurred if malibu 8 years ago so they clearly have not met the standards of new or different material facts it is certainly not an extraordinary case to sum up i'm suggest to you i remind you that the city has reviewed this xaufl and applied the standards they're met and simply no grounds for a rehearing. >> your time is up. >> he didn't get a thirty second warning i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> okay. we'll hear from the department is the timer working

now great. >> good evening, commissioners carli short department of public works basically, i think we feel similar insufficient cause to grant rehearing in this case we don't feel there is new information present we do concur our advise has been that your city attorney get it right this is our understanding of the way it appeal could be grant bans the law so we simply building they don't meet the rehearing we respectfully ask the rehearing is denied thank you. >> okay we can take public comment anyone wishes to speak. >> oh, i want to speak didn't see you there mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the same

that the hearing request they cited first, the planning department submitted a brief that was part of public works brief submitted to the department we clearly noted that was a planning location planning compliant and noted our standards for review under that in the rehearing request the appellant kites testimony from the planner on president's subsequent case not misquoting anything for the case before you for those facts we'll not say there is reason for a rehearing question i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> anyone here wishes to speak on this item seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the city attorney. >> is it really interesting

thing put forth which is the change in condition on the light pole when we heard the testimony before and we ruled before the condition on the light pole according to the appellant was different than it is today and with the addition of another vendor putting their stuff on it creates the domino effect that the vendor in question or the permit holder in question verizon now may have to place their stuff in a different place because another vendors put their stuff in the place they were supposed to say this a change in condition? and we might as well answer it now it will probably happen again what happens between now and then a

condition changes we were told was to happen might change because the condition was changed according to their plan. >> would it be better to ask if it will effect where they place it? >> if that's the jest of what you're asking. >> it changes the conditions if he were talking about any other case. >> - >> something happened and therefore the plans were changed the plans were changed a building are could be anything we'll be discussing i'd like to clarification of what a changed condition creates a situation where it might merit a rehearing. >> the department can also address when a new permit is needed with another revision a permit or a revision permit.

>> i did not ask you to - i'd like to hear from the city attorney. >> i understand your reference to the city attorney. >> i'd like to hear if the city attorney or of zoning administrator. >> their thank you, very much. this is a rehearing request so the question was whether or not this was information that should have been made available then at the time of the hearing that would have effected your judgment on that matter so i think to extend that world to a subsequent permit after you decided the issue once before might raise some due process concerns.

>> i did not know whether the existence of a new condition created new information for a merit of the discussion of a new hearing according to what i've come to understand and i may be wrong that's why i'm asking the question. >> i think a new permit something that requires a new permit a different condition that's not officially related to the permitted hearing that would give me comfortable to reverse the decision on the new permit based on there's enough information for the new permit the new permit could be appealed and you could decide probability assuming the law likewise it consider whether or not now to a new permit significantly

degrades the view to the buildings or significantly degrade the neighborhood or maybe a threshold point that analysis but i think to go back and undo the decision on the fire permit there's potential a new permit i think this is questionable. >> if the current condition that was created has changed. >> the perimeters of the construction that we have already discussed >> i don't know what you mean by change of perimeters. >> between this is what is confusing between the before and now tomcast cable i'm not saying they did tomcast comes in and they expand their position on that pole and while xandz their position on that pole they butt into the

area that verizon was to put their equipment on and therefore verizon has to move their equipment which is not in sync with the plan we've approved. >> is this a hypothetical. >> i don't know. >> we might ask dpw or x net. >> i'd like to hear from the appropriate. >> i'll start with ms. short. >> it's my belief we've been assuring the permit on the finding of the board and the application before the board in another entities changed the condition of the site to the extent the placement can't be met we'll likely approach the others entities and say know determine whether or not the information to put the cable and have them move so this permit

can be executed as issued or that will require a new process to the permit should - the perimeters felt permit need to be adhered to and adjust the change or a new permit process then appealable. >> shall we move forward if we uphold the permit with the assumption all things are status quo regardless of what maybe changed. >> yes. again, if this entity has the right to make that change and couldn't be resolved we'll need to go back to get advice who wins who's permits wins. >> thank you for that clarification i appreciate it. >> ms. short your department sooner building and planning has it there's a degree of change that is allowed and probably

beyond which you'll require a new permit. >> that's right if this was to shifted the conditions of the permit in any major way yes, we'll need to have a new permit process the degree to which the other entities make adjustment is renot limited to under their existing permit. >> thank you. >> is there a motion? >> well, i would bring something up rehearing requester inferred in their brief that their reference is pretty much to the entire board as having perhaps some level of confusion with what the specific perimeters are in

viewing those types of permits speaking for myself it was pretty clear what types of reviews by the various departments and what triggers certain types of issues with respect to either modification or denial of those kinds of permits, however, if other members of the board felt there was some confusion then as a matter of due process i would support a rehearing just to clarify that particular issue to make sure that we all understood exactly what the perimeters are and made our decision according i would say that given i was a

rookie and i shed confusion during that hearing and substantially mr. brienna had classified all of us i might fit into that category. >> and for the sake the clarity to do a rehearing to make sure that everybody is on board of the understanding of the terms. >> on the other hand, i felt it was clear i personally feel that the criteria of bar has not been met for a rehearing excuse me. that manifested justice has occurred but since we have had multiple multiple cases from this vendor that will be before this board maybe some clarity on

this first case might - so i will defer to my fellow commissioners. >> the only problem multiple multiple permits under different circumstances what you may learner of this situation maintaining be applicable. >> what commissioner swig said the definition of view and 99 lombardi fits the criteria for view for this particular property is that what you're alluding to. >> or the impact i think the ambiguity or lack of clarity that i have with regard to view in article 25 it alludes to the impact on the not just the individual location but the neighborhood has a whole and the view of the quarters impact

there. >> it is still makes me scratch any head i wouldn't if i were the are asking for a rehearing want somebody that is unclear on the subject from the beginning. >> to raise the issue that maybe we should hear this again. >> no commit commissioner. >> no, i was not unclear i understand the standard but not prepared to vote for a rehearing. >> actually. >> i agree as well. >> commissioners. >> well whoever wants to make the motion. >> i move to deny the rehearing request on the base there is no new information are manifest injustice. >> so on that motion from the president to deny the request commissioner fung marry no

commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig no that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero so the request is denied. >> we can move on to item 5 is the appellant here if you could raise your hand okay. thank you item 5 appeal versus the department of building inspection the property on rice street protesting the issuance on june 2015 to john of an alteration permit to remove the downstairs sink and kitchen to wall at the ground floor and we will start with the appellant you need to come up to the podium. >> no. you can't. >> you cannot. >> whoever is going to speak on this item needs to come to the

microphone. >> (laughter). >> hello, everyone thank you for coming tonight. >> so you have 7 minutes. >> okay. >> please speak as best you can directly into the microphone and i apologize for the delay. >> i am really short i'll move it over i apologize. >> nuts i'm sarah i reside on rice street my request is that you overturn the permit that my landlord

filed to remove the illegal unit downstairs it is detrimental to my living situation and it also removes affordable unit stock from san francisco's available housing i - this all came about when i discovered any legislative aide to board president london breed or landlord was trying to remove an in-law unit downstairs to have dpw take notice without a permit and investigate the building materials use in the illegal unit are not fire retardant that concerns me and per my landlord e-mails that send mixed messages i wasn't sure i had access to the

illustrate shut off and the illegal unit i wanted them to come and check out i notified john that i notified expelling dpw and they the an inspection and he dedicated them to file for a permit to remedy the violation and that's when i sort of realized when was happening my rent orient protection was therefore being removed as well as the illegal unit i've been living on rice street since 2011 august 27, 2011 even though it doesn't say on any original lease i was hoping to have up on the projector for you guys it display state it is protected by the legal ordinance my landlord increased my rent so

he boofdz as if i was protected i thought that was the case unfortunately i've learned that which that dwelling unit disappears will go from a illegal unit to a single-family home i'll no longer have the protection and the notification for the fees i received in may that downloads my rent and doubles any security deposit moving forward will actually take effect or, effective actually be legal i won't have the protection of the legal ordinance is my understanding the unit downstairs is separate from my upstairs unit no shared entrances for the units nothing next to the two of them

i feel like this is possible a different sort of example of the shoot sorry. >> okay this is a different example of the detrimental reliance because i relied on any initial lease that guaranteed a 2 bedroom upstairs flat and indeed a downstairs unit because that was a 2 unit dwelling i was located by the rent increases by the ones trying to be passed on to me and the protection i've entitled to those up until that point and i relied on that i wouldn't have moved into any

home or apartment i wouldn't be able to afford that by myself i'm also not allowed to replace a roommate that i had that recently vacated any apartment with a one for one replacement guaranteed to be able to do per john dmrooin any request to replace that person and also adds to the increasing of him harding park i'm xerjs i'm not employed any longer i was sick for two years and taking care of of my sick father i don't have full-time rent and can't pay the increased rent and security deposit by myself i did have pictures for all of you i apologize this is so unorganized

illegal in-law unit is accepted dedicated to 1963 the tint for the space to use as a dwelling unit or living spoois space not something new that mr. north america vary changed the occupancy of the building that moved back in 2009 when they moved in it seems since 1963 that space was designated as an in-law unit so i would like you to either set forth restrictions on the permit or to over turn it to preserve affordable unit stock in any home i'll be homeless

otherwise thank you. >> i have a question. >> oh, go for it sorry. >> your brief was little bit hard to go through i currently occupy the space as well as the in-law unit. >> no upstairs a it two unit bedroom flat. >> was the downstairs rent-controlled unit. >> yes. they were under a couple of years before i moved in they moved out for a large space they had a baby. >> okay. thank you. >> anyone else thank you for your time everyone. >> thank you. >> we'll hear if the permit holder now, mr. north america vary. >> so excuse me. i'm rather new at this also

okay. i submitted a brief with exhibits should i put the exhibit on to the machine as they go united kingdom up here. >> as you wish. >> on may 15th she made a complaint with a possible unit downstairs with the garage and water residue and the tenant doesn't it have access to the water or fuse box or water heater it was inspected by dbi robert waller must be this way also on june 15th i was able to

talk to mr. wallers after he got back from the property he was lead into the property by the appellant she had access to the downstairs to let him in downstairs well, mr. robert wallers did do permit research on this as stated in exhibit c and he came up with a document that was taken out by any mother in 1963 to legalize the use of downstairs as a ruckus room not a second unit

so in talking to dbi mr. wallers i asked him what is finding were that would be the notice of violation exhibit c one and that was to stall a c o alarm in the basement i the he inspected on july 16th a smoke detectors in the renters bedroom i the it was completed and inspected on the 16, remove wiring in the garage which was an extension cord that was ran to a lights outside so added asked mr. wallers to what to do and put in conduit

in talking to mr. wallers at the start by telephone on june 9th, he suggested that instead of going through the notice of violation on the downstairs having a sink and such that shouldn't be there suggested i take out a building permit to remove the kitchen sink and to - directed by the dbi to take out the permit to correct the violation i the so in a matter of a few days my whole intent was just to be in scompliens with the dbi not to try to sneak out anything to hurt the appellant purple heart to be in experience with the violations that were on the

property which i the at my expense i have a picture of the kitchen sink so that is what we're here today removal of kitchen sink oh, and, yes the ruckus room was rented to any cousin he moved out april 9th of 2015 i had no intentions of rerenting the ruckus room before - oh, my cousin moved in

there she was correct he was there right now all i'm doing is try to be in compliance with dbi. >> i think that's all unless i need to use up two more minutes. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> >> i have a question go ahead. >> i'm confused lady lives in the legal upstairs unit. >> that's correct. >> you had relatives living in the illegal downstairs unit with the kitchen sink, etc. >> that's correct. >> so you're now turning that into a legal space by getting rid of the kitchen sink so why is she no longer going to be a tenant in the building if in the legal upstairs space. >> i'm not environmental impact

her. >> what she said she felt it was a two unit building that would afford her tenant rights for the rent control that's what her premise is. >> of it was a non-or in-law unit not a two unit building. >> something the department will clear it up. >> i'll wait and mr. naifr did you charge your cousin rent. >> yes. i do. >> how about 2009 my daughter lived there prior to her getting married i don't think i charged her rent. >> any desire to legalize this unit. >> no, sir i'm 63 and just not

wanting to go that route. >> i have health conditions. >> i have some questions i'd like wait until the departments will clear those up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> the man of the hour. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi building inspection under appeal is for probably rice street a second floor building with one basement a down in the building permit a renal for instance, and remove the downstairs ground to wall i noticed on the permit that the building permit was approved by dbi, however, didn't go to the planning department

and typically those permits should go through the planning department i think mr. sanchez will address that that is one thing i've noticed the plan checker missed that in the writing of the permit so that's one thing on the complaint you heard from the previous speakers the complaint was filed with our department and it was the same with the housing inspection services they were read by the appellant here and the housing inspector everything that was said was pretty accurate from the reports on the overhead that was some the housing inspector took he noticed issued a notice of violation for some as you heard the arms and to remove some wiring in the garage i noticed in the complaint

tracking that he didn't reference this building permit the permit research to remove the downstairs kitchen there was decision i'm going to file a permit rather than that write it up that this was underway and the 1963 a permit in the brief and that permit is for the - under exhibit c at this time as a single-family residence and the ground floor to explore two small walls with sheetrock for 9 by 11 feet and the concrete floor to legalize the ruckus room 20 by 14 feet so obviously at some point in the future between 1963 and 2015 we had a stove stalled and a sink so this

permit is remove that and put it back to the legal use so i believe as you may know the appellant lives upstairs i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i've got a question is there a legal bath downstairs as well. >> is that in the permit i did not really see that. >> i just got the brief no plans or anything in the brief so typically we need to see drawings that's a question for the property owner. >> so the permit to make the correction the original didn't indicate a legals bath a ruckus room; right? >> the property profile may have a number of bathrooms i have i printed the property profile from the records which sometimes their accurate and sometimes not we have it with us

tonight. >> thank you okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department subject property within the rh1 sdroern with the single-family dwelling the use is a single-family dwelling the permit was not realized to the planning department it was a policy we have with the building inspection that permits were removed from units legal or legally are routed to the planning department that had been routed to us there would be no d b m and the unit could potentially, legalized under the planning codes but an option for the pertaining to pursue in regards to the rent control it is my understanding that the rent board didn't look at the legality so the rent control is

to two unit buildings with a project and in a case they probably would say that the go or building as with two unit one legal and one illegal would be sunset to rent control and the removal will liken make it no longer for rent control they're generally eliminated from rent control there are things that are subject to it but previous tenant it predates 1996. >> 1996 i'm available to answer any questions. >> quickly would you consider that the permit was not properly issued it didn't undergo the. >> if it was routed we say would have approved it. >> one qualification to your statement about it being legal

continuity. >> there's a process to go through the legalization and it may not qualify so potentially possible for legalization. >> question as well mr. sanchez so those have come up before those board regularly 3 last week so what is the condition if someone were to remove a illegal or non-permitted room are they able to legalize it there the planning after or some something that stops them once they remove the unit from market it depends upon the circumstances they're saying this is a second dwelling unit they could prevail themselves to legalize in but if they through the permit legalizing it they

lose all change in the future and given the rfp district no provision from the planning code provisions to have a second units on the prompt you could have a case in the rh2 one is illegal their removing that unit and could substantially under the planning code restore that. >> rh1 reremove that if inadvertent not able to add it back thank you for that clarification. >> it depends on whether or not the sunset u unit is allowed or whether or not it is anything that could only beleaguer list. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, ma'am, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you for - i apologize

if i was confusing. >> so we need you to speak into the microphone. >> so i wanted to show you some supporting evidence from mire claim against the argument for 0 sorry detrimental reliance on the argument i have this is my landlord has effectively changed any terms on my lease from the. >> you can bring the microphone over bring it over. >> from the one 50 rice street to upstairs to the flat to the most recent terms and change of

tenancy where it is just one 50 rice street unilaterally changed the tendency without increasing my services having access to the whole house he states in the new lease i've effectively stay in the whole house this is not what's happening and that's not what i signed up for i present your clarifying some things john there's some things that are confusing to me, i'm kind of getting those down in the next minute with you my landlord showed up and put stalled a new mailbox to that covers the two doorbells that were once for the lower unit i'm sorry and the lower unit he also states that i need to

abide by certain criteria on the original lease but trying to pursue the terms of this new leases on other criteria it is a back and forth and very confusing i think that he's benefited from the additional rents from you know however long 6 years of the tenants i knew of and actually presented him with a cost benefit analysis shoim it behooves him to invest $10,000 to bring the unit up to code to be able to enjoy the future rents for himself and for the folks involved in his trust i'll let you guys ask questions now. >> i just want to - no, no, no that's fine what this body is

concerned with is the permit that was issued by the department of building inspection and while we appreciate and understand our situation and your concerns from any prospective most of what you've been talking about is not the purview of this board. >> okay. i apologize. >> don't need to apologize. >> but my appeal with the permit was to try to vet those sort of things. >> of course and a present them in front of of you i know you have sympathy because on april 29th you passed a motion to require some sort of notification for similar situations like ours so this is not i'm not bringing something to be able to this is not something like this. >> i want you to know with the outcome what we've been considering. >> yeah. the permit to overturn

it or let it go through i understand. >> that's what is going to create our situation but can't look at that. >> and i'd appreciate it. >> unfortunately, to follow-up that the case you mentioned was slightly different those folks were actually in the unit downstairs that was physically being removed unfortunately this is not venue for what you need to get down probably with the rent board. >> i have a hearing with with them coming up in september i've been trying to utility all the resources in san francisco to have their voices heard and to present their cases to as many people as possible to stop things like this from happening. >> i sympathy emphasize bus it's the permit. >> any other questions. >> all right. thank you for your time. >> mr. north ameriavaro .

>> nothing relates to the building permit so i'm quite sure i need to rebuttal for allegations about changing some of the tenancy or lease of house that's totally untrue the fact she has a key to the downstairs and garage for emergency purposes for water and electrical and stuff like this i have been a landlord since the early 80s not just with this house but several others i consider myself a good landlord so sometimes feeling dem in his

sometimes by the lady after the relationship that we had for over the years has been a good one there's been really no problems something breaks she calls me i send a plumber or electrician out it gets fixed she's trying to utility everything she can it runs me through the hoops a bit i venting. >> she made an allegation of the mailbox the only piece of woods on the building it was everything else was stucco it was a locked mailbox she didn't use everything else was hanging on the gate that i guess that's

all i have to see thank you for your time oh, any questions for me? >> no, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy did you have anything more. >> commissioners viewing dbi an answer to commissioner vice president honda's the property profile says two bath but basement is zero there's kind of a conflict for the people to provide the bathroom on the ground floor it shows two bath on the property profile. >> two legal baths on the property. >> that's what it says. >> it was built in 48; is that correct. >> no i don't think it was built in 63 but the permit removed itself units in 63.

>> i've not seen 63 i've seen 48 if i remember. >> i'm not sure just one thing on the building permit i know i do think it should have been reviewed we the planning department and on error by the dbi staff when i read the brief i saw the writing on the permit was flawed i brought it to the attention of higher management at the dbi because we do so a lot of those at the boards most of the time the planning department is not the agree agency that needs to see that because of the different things going on with dwelling units and just i think this is only right that it should have been reviewed to the planning

department. >> on that basis we potentially uphold the appeal and overturn the permit because it wasn't properly reviewed that's the next step would the permit holder have to come back and start over. >> starter with a new permit to show the removal of the downstairs sink and stove. >> no times penalty or any of that essentially not his fault. >> we won't issue a notice of violation or something like that it is unfortunate the applicant it is definitely not applicable on the back of planning it should be sent to planning and it probably misses some phase because of that planning fees (laughter) which are not cheap. >> yeah. that would be an issue as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> do you mind if i ask the

homeowner how many bathrooms on the property. >> yeah. could you come to the podium the question is how many bathed to you have upstairs and downstairs. >> one downstairs and one upstairs the full baths and the document you're looking for on the bathroom for downstairs was from 1948. >> yeah. >> and - i'm answered the question since i'm up here. >> no, we only need you to answer the question. >> anything mr. sanchez so commissioners the matter is submitted if you're looking denying the permit another opposite to continue the case to allow the case to be cancelled if i'm not mistaken allows the

are permit holder fees to be refunded. >> i'm willing. >> okay. >> so moved. >> (laughter). for well, we haven't had our discussion yet for how long >> what's our - >> i don't know, you might want to put it to the call of the chair to give the process time the appeal will ultimately be administratively dismissed as removed once the permit is cancelled. >> so the motion to - >> continue the appeal. >> continue the appeal to the call of the chair on the base - no, that's probably all we need. >> to allow times for the pertaining to cancel the current permit it was not properly

reviewed. >> is that - there further destruction or you want me to call the roll. >> commissioner fung any comment. >> i'm not sure the da has indicated he railway puts forth that kind of pressure that planning probably would i'm not sure i'll support an additional process. >> although i would be semiathletic that will involve some additional time but has nothing to do with with her rent. >> we has nothing to do with with her rents. >> i hear you in terms of the process but i'm not comfortable with that, i think it could set a precedent. >> we've done it both ways with

planning and yeah. >> we've taken it over rather than sending it back in the number of instances. >> but if you have a motion. >> i will make that motion to continue to discuss. >> calling the roll to continue the case to the call of the chair to allow the permit holder time to cancel. >> commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that motion carries 5 to zero and mr. navaro you can contact me or inspector duffy to talk about the process. >> so we'll move on to item 6 ab

they'll be heard together is john nolte and nick versus the planning commission property on hiding street protesting the issuance on june 11th for the architecture incorporated for the pursuant to the planning code for an 85 unit building with 4 thousand plus gross secret and a demolition of a one structure for the united states postal service and on for hearing today is the gentleman in the room okay my understanding commissioners from any confidences he had an interest in withdrawing his appeal not able to process the paperwork he's told me by phone not planning on attending the hearing we can precede with mr.

nolte's appeal wherever you may your decision dispose of the appeal at the same time. >> so mr. nolte if you'll step forward i want to mention you have a family member in the room under the boards rule members of the families or outside the representatives of an appellant or other party are not entitled to speak under general public comment and have their comments given evidentiary weight you might want to share some of your time to alert you to the fact. >> he wasn't part of progress. >> the board's rules say the representatives of a party needs to speak under the time loaded and the representatives are included that are family members i wanted you to know that now

with our 7 minutes. >> part of my 7 minutes or what. >> if you want him to speak do it during his 7 minutes. >> i don't know what he wants. >> or during our 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> i did not live with my brother he's not in my household we live in separate retains so he should be able to speak separately arrest the board's rules don't limit it to household members only family separately so - >> i mean, i got a lot of

relatives i'm a native so - >> i can speak not considered testimony so under the sunshine ordinance he's entitled to speak but under the board's rules his testimony is not considered. >> okay. i'll speak on behalf of he'll not speak and withdraw his speaker card. >> okay. thank you. >> go. >> okay

my name is john nolte a native san franciscan and incorporateer of the tenderloin co-organizer for the campaign and form member of the market coalition in my appeal for 14 dash 095 on the first page of the appeal i asked the commissioners all to go to the neighborhood site to look at the surrounding neighborhood on the first line of my appeal and i hope your commissioners did see and then also on exhibit a-8 i gave a postal letter stating about how 101 hiding was taken off the list therefore the property owner should have depressed his plans the only reason to start the plan was

because on october 11, 2011, the property was put on foreclosing list to other ways to deal with the property since the post office is not closing that site and was taken off that project should have stopped right then and there in 2012 project will add 11 trees no such thing in july 31st, 2004, the community and i planted 8 trees on the hyde street and four on the golden gate side of the property only 3, commissioner driscoll years later the property owner shows not maintaining the mature trees all project reports the mitigations removal of mature trees is seafoods by planting new ones but the mature trees are greater

benefits to - i will not take a decade or two for a newly planted tree to compensate for removal of a mature tree. >> the term line 2011 goals to preserve and the goal to preserve expand and improve the housing for middle-income residence in the pdf file the code affordable units and all economic segments prop k that was passed in 2014 states affordable housing passed over 65 percent of the voters

therefore this property does not include any of that your voigt the voters of the city and county of san francis this is the map of the next door building - or this is showing the entranceway of the property this is the map of the neighborhood and shows the property entrance here and it

goes all the way to four buildings here's a picture of that right here and those are the butt believes that will be taken away a fire exist e exit to the buildings have been taken otaken out this is the next two buildings hyde this is a bar association building and for hiv people here's proof it is for the bar association property next door

this is a next building over on golden gate madonna center 350 the madonna center and the list of the senior center and the living room all for seniors in the neighborhood this is the courtyard at the center and this would be affected by the shadow of the building and also since they use this both for the senior center this is a map of 3 streets to

the south this is from 101 hyde the square, block open space that will be affected this right here is the ymca which is open space this is the open space here open space here open space here, which will be affected by the property and the construction site this is actually a garden for the neighborhood this showing hastening and the ymca playground that will be effecting the seating for the students for hastening their cafeteria from the mcallister golden gate side this is mcallister side showing they have beverages and everything this is right out from their cafeteria for the students going to the school

this is another picture of the ymca yard and plants and vegetables. >> thank you. we, hear from the promotion holde >> good evening my name is

howard from the law firm i'm here representing the motion holder the family trust i'd like to introduce mr. paul erickson one of the co-trustees of the trust and like to introduce our architect i'll take 5 minutes and leave a couple of minutes for the architect and for questions you may have. >> first of all, i'd like to emphasis this is a great project for san francisco in every way the planning commission approved that by a 4 to nothing vote it's been in planning for approximately 4 years the benefits are that that will not remove any hours no current housing provide 85 new units 10

will be affordable plies with the requirements of the city and provides 5 thousand square feet of new retail space it is consistent with the general plan, consistent with the downtown plan until the planning commission hearing there was virtually no or no opposition to this exhibit 5 to our belief we go through all the various community outreach efforts we are undertaken since april of envelope approximately 7 meetings with various groups and meetings with various individuals the project sponsor and motion holder has gone out of their way to design a project to fit in with the city and meet people's concerns and so therefore we're going to request the boards uphold the planning commission approval as is without any new additions

i'll brief address the main arguments that have been raised although mr. nolte didn't raise it i believe the community members will could you be the post office we've received additional correspondence the main point where the post office is located what service is the post office officer is up to the post office it is the u.s. postal service a federal you know a federal agency has billions of in its budget it is a tenants you know the post office nans it was closing i don't know if it is still on the closure list but a landlord/tenant with the owner but let the lease expire without contacting the property owner the property owner went to the post office and said would you like a one year extension they

said it allowed the post office to cancel with 60 days notice an issue where did the post office itself want to be relocated they'll relocation the boxes to the plazas and general delivery is up to the post office they're looking for new sites they could put it in a current site or a federal building about to block away or fox plaza it is up to the post office site was being poorly utilized frankly by the post office the facility that was there you couldn't mail a letter from the post office or buy a stamp from that facility i walked by that facility today it is not a very good block and this project is going to make that better it is supported by the community and supported by hastening law school the idea 85 new

residential units to try to improve that it provides for housing and nobody is being displaced and just on the post office again, it came up in the commission hearing whether or not this could somehow is post office could be given a rooirl the city attorney communicated to the commission that would be a constitutional condition i believe it would be those cases a cited in the brief those are the u.s. supreme court cases let me briefly addresses mr. nolte's comments with respect to the trees he's planned on the site they were removed by the police departments there were visibility issues when we plant the new trees we'll work with the you know the relevant departments to try to put them

in a place they won't want them removed respect to the tenderloin plan mr. nolte the second goal to expand housing no housing is being removed by this project it is expanding housing 85 new units 13 two or 3 bedroom units for families he mention the driveway he gave you a picture that driveway and easement will remain from place the way it goes the driveway is 17 and a half feet wide is going to remain and turns down into the underground garage the people that currently have access will use it the easement will remain in place not effected finally he mentioned the senior center the madonna center and other areas in exhibit 3 a

shadow study was done the only impact not significant is about an hour during 6 weeks the summer it may be that no longer 12 square feet of the yard in the madonna center has additional shade that's not a significant impact obviously there is trade offs you'll have 5 thousand new - square feet of retail, you're going to have a lot of new housing where it is needed i did not leave any time for the gentleman i apologize. i apologize we're all open for any questions you may have. >> i've got one the rest i'll wait in regards to the affordable housing are you keeping them onsite or number two, or are you putting in lieu fees or onsite and we're keeping them onsite it is better for the

concerns that have been expressed. >> i'm sure you've dealt with the neighborhood randy shaw's office is across the street. >> mr. shaw if he would like to have 85 new housing units it is consistent with the current uses so - >> okay. thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i really don't have too much to address the subject is within the c-3 g-3 before you on appeal this is the planning commission projects downtown as part of this their psyching e seeking to exemptions the one to the rear yard and one to the ground level additionally a variance for the

permitted obstruction because it exceeds the exposure for the between at the rear the building that will be before you in early september no argument on consolidating the hearing doits dates unfortunately we believe this was properly reviewed and the planning commission was proper in reviewing the applications most of concerns that were race at the planning commission as well many of the concerns raised in the paeltsdz briefs relate to the displacement of the post office which does have a lease ending at the end of the year i have information from the staff they're in communication with the post office i can provide about the future here so has been stated the po boxed will be relocated to fox plaza and expect the relocation of the boxes to be completed by the end

of october if not easily before the end of the lease in december general clarifying will be relocated and the post office will will have no interruption in service with the service in operation by the end of the year as a back up plan it is available in hunters point and everybody this guess not an open mall solution but going to go through the process of general deliver and hope to have that done by the end of the year this identifies a handful of potential sites the meeting will be at the end of the september after the meeting a thirty day hold pits everything at the end of the october and depending on the amount of time to make the improvements hope to have it up

and operational by the end of the year in early december i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> the there was one point i noted when i was reviewing the information from planning i did not get a change to go back the rear yard requirement here is this 25 percent. >> there's a three percent rear yard requirement under the code they've sector an exception give in the downtown can be exempted through the thirty 9 process not the variance. >> what does it windup to be. >> i can make that calculation and come back to you on rebuttal. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take public comment may i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on general public comment first person that want to speak

come to the microphone and the other people listen up on the far side of the wall we would appreciate that as well. >> my name is bryan i live on mcallister i have maintained a post office box here since i moved to the bay area in 1983 the same box number i retained that when i lived in oakland between 2005 because it is important that there be a place i can always receive mail so if i move or anything happened there is no disruption of any mail because that can create problems of mail that is important moving the boxes could create disruptions ii remember back in 19 when i moved in 83 i got a

box of the old post office on 7th street and mixing that lasted until the earthquake but putting p.o. box at the end of town on evans street it is impossible to get to no bart service no it is almost at the san mateo county line would be an anti ravages inconvenience with general delivery for people that use that general deliver are following people in the neighborhood that don't have a place serve no purchase i did not think that the p.o. box has been there we don't need any new of those ugly soulless building blythe the neighborhood when i moved here i lived i mean this is what's happening to the city

another attempt to push low income people out i say totally mixed plan let the post office stay on the property indefinitely the people in the neighborhood need a stable post office thank you. >> thank you and if you haven't filled out a speaker card we'll appreciate that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is ben i'm a senior phone director for the golden gate senior center we're a downtown center on golden gate avenue next to the post office and as you may know we serve a senior with disabilities most of time they have a mental disorder bipolar disorder and common

depression and mobility problems so when they. come to the center they receive the shipment at the senior my big concern in the post office is being demolished or the new building is being built the loss to our the landlords can cost a person with dementia hesitation earlier or someone with a low mental disorder usually we'll have experience in the courtyard so imagine when the possessive is being demolished and it is combaegd they're doing the experience my last concern why in front of our daycare center

we provide transportation because most of them have mobility problems i'm concerned is the congestion our driver can't park at van there because away from the post office so it raise a scott wiener question to the services because our driver cannot park at the next street we are escort them it is two risky they walk and use a wheelchair across golden gate avenue i would like the commissioners to think about how the negative impact to your seniors with the disabilities as a stepping stone for golden gate. >> i have a question circo you

speak at the planning commission hearing. >> no actually, i have our person if you want to lower our service i'll give it to you. >> that's okay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is having i get any mail an hyde street i'm here to protest the issuance of the permits on hyde street here are 6 reasons one we need a place for the post office renters to get their mail they pay for this this is a convenient location. two this is the official location be presenting for general delivery in san francisco people can't afford to pay for a rental of a p.o. box

services 0 those people rely on survival benefits like food stamps and medi-cal and general assistance and some of them may have mobility problems or other problems like you know whether they're in an institution or not they might surf suffer from derby it's not clear with the construction of a mutilate union building will have on the quality of life in terms of pollution and noise pollution and others we must support the united states post office it is a valuable institution and deserves our protection there's an onslaught of attacks on post office in brooklyn and berringer game where i used to be from our founding fathers mentioned about

the protection of the u.s. post office in the u.s. constitution 5, there's also an aesthetic reap to protect this this was a gorgeous mural painted on the outdoor the building if it is an seat asset to the neighborhood there are actors and they like the musical notes and humming birds i speak if you know my interviewing of various people that you know used to live there or still live in the neighborhood they love that building and 6 yes. i agree there is a need for additional housing in the city moll affordable everyone needs affordable units and prop k was passed by the voters last fall stated all buildings should have 50 percent affordable housing

not 10 percent not meeting the standards of prop k please be sensitive to the voters and the renters needs that live in this neighborhood and don't just let the developers also have their way please listen to the people not only the money interests thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm susan bryan i live in the neighborhood for 25 years and most of the points i'd like to make have been eloquently made less than what i was able to do briefly seniors that were mentioned will have to deal with two years of construction and like i said, i was wanting to

take until originally about the general delivery issues and box boxes the tenants that used the boxes in general delivery needs reliable mail they need to you know they will have appointments and services and they're trying to get their lives in order and reliable mail helps that a lot now i can tell you having lived here in this neighborhood 25 years a lot of people have to deal with difficult and hostile managers where they live they have to frequently move and sometimes managers will retaliate against individuals by holds their mail or doing things they shouldn't do and get away with it that's why it is important for people to have

reliable mail always this is the fourth amendment having their papers secures the post office - it is arrest people that interfere with the mail this is important. >> that people have that still guarantee of their papers being secured when in their getting and sending them so it is not a light thing and i have a separate mailbox since 1981 and my mother had a p.o. box up in admission for 16 years until she passed away this is important for you know for keeping your life together thank you. >> excuse me. do you still have

a mailbox at this facility. >> no, my mother has that mailbox when she passed away way from the earthquake i have a mailbox service i've used since 1981 in the neighborhood and i live for 5 and a half years no oakland and come to the city 3 times a week to get my mail. >> do you use a non-governmental. >> yes. i do but it is like i said, i needed - having reliable mail at all the times makes a difference in someone's life especially, if circumstances demand they have to leave the premises. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yeah hello, i'm joseph thomas a resident of the tenderloin for the last 10 years first reason most residents oppose this project was total out of character for the neighborhood this is a 9 story building the tallest building in the neighborhood besides the federal building and the project does not provide anything like affordable housing if in fact the first step to gentrification of tenderloin and golden gate avenue is a major transportation lane and can you imagine tying that up

for two years and the post office i'm here to speak for the residents that can't make that here which is a lot of the people in the tenderloin as many of you may know are seniors or disabled people or transients and they rile on that facility for their mail many for example, if you live on eddy and taylor can't go to market to get our mail and moving it to evans really like a joke i guess so i think the issue the post office really should be something before this permit is granted or you know they can build anything there. >> also there are letters that we're submitting in hastening

they approximately think this would be a great thing to have a post office in that location that's what the residents in the neighborhood want of that's the building is disapproved a full service post office there's nothing near it it serves the students near hastening as well as the residents of the neighborhood thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is e.r. win i'm from washington and living 90 in san francisco for two years i'm a homeless residents who's been in variance programs or whatever but my gut i'll definitely want to stress that i wanted to speak

what the speakers are speaking about the issues things like that i'm only thirty even for me it is has he will to do the things i do doctor's appointments and things like that making sure i don't have to correct this issue or deal with the administrative work and not just speaking of the post office being a further location that- i'd like to say that will cause a lot of issues on citizens that have wheelchairs and mental issues, neurological issues and sounds like that location will be further it takes a long time to get to that location

which they were sprng about the planning none said exactly when the post office will be would location we'll go to what dates this and that and actually don't have a clear plan where to this new location of the post office a lot of can't afford the service and i feel this is right for us to have a post office that is assessable that we can get to that doesn't cost stress and that is against the citizen data that had the data to make more work for them i'd like to speak on the affordable housing that i also think i'm for affordable housing but we heard it only group of 10 units i believe we need a higher percentage up might have am

living in real estate investments when i hear that number i think it maybe more so i would like to state that i think that if their should be plans for housing it should be somewhere else i'm pretty sure they have other locations i just think that taking the possessive from 101 hyde street not only will cause an issue of on the people transportation wise and them to issue itself is not planned out so i think that it should stating stay at 101 hyde street. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is office of the city

administrator 0 i live a few blocks away i think what i think anular to the post office with the speakers are highlighting this service doesn't create a lot of services that are needed particularly for the north of market area neighborhood with some of the unique neighborhood a low income neighborhood and a lot of disabled seniors great number of people walking there if you take a 2000, 9 hundred and food cord that will encompass 50 thousand people living in the square mile and people increases and this is the neighborhood they're putting this unit in this building in i think the kind of - it - so

what i'm saying our neighborhood is doing it's part to provide the hours for the city we're providing 3 times more density than - well more density 3 times more density than all neighborhoods we actually need in the neighborhood is low income housing and affordable housing just 15 percent affordable that's far below we we need we need low income housing and substance housing and program housing, we need shelters those are the kinds of things we need if this project wanted to provide more services to the neighborhood the kinds of things we'll like to see would be smaller units, which are more affordable by nature a instead

of having 15 parking spaces have zero there are more pedestrian accidents in the tenderloin than any other neighborhoods in the city mississippi we've been trying to get land grants that means all of the properties all the units will be permanently affordable if with respect to get that permanently affordable and perhaps another mitigation i don't oppose the project but like to see a better project. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, then mr. nolte you have rebuttal 3 minutes. >> before i start rebuttal i want to start ask for a

continuance there were 8 copies i asked how many of letters submitted and have not gone to the board president they're sitting here there for the commissioners to read i'm asking for on appeal right now. >> there's no need for a ruling when it is. >> no, i read. >> the public not in the middle. >> so why. >> if you want it distributed we'll distribute to the board members. >> those are documents. >> so mr. long distribute those and keep copy for the file before you do thank you. >> i'll wait. >> you can hand to those commissioner swig and he'll pass

the rest along okay. i think you can begin thank you. >> excuse me. ma'am, please step back

you, you ready and mr. long start the clock now thank you. >> this is a map of the active permits in the area this is the map of the active permits within a block surrounding block of the project this is the mini park one block away it will cast a shadow on this is a picture of the project from the north i don't think so how that the project the project here is going to be taller than the surrounding buildings those are facts on the site this is a picture if the north no -- excuse me. from the east of the property you'll be putting a shadow on

the federal building and on the open space over here those backyards and again, here's the playground right here the mini playground right here and so you can see the current buildings in the neighborhood so explain to me how this building matches any of the surrounding buildings we have to the south we have the service center historical district and to the east another historical district this happens to be on the borders of two historical districts this building didn't fit at all it is a monster so explain to me how does neighborhood wants this

building it is - does not look like at all any of the buildings around and show you the shots of buildings around it thank you. >> thank you, sir we have the rebuttal for you now. >> i'm not going to have time to address every comment every comment has been addressed in

the brief i'll address first of all, mr. wong expressed on and on a concern submitted a letter to the board stepping on the neighborhoods the other side of the driveway he's concerned about what is going to happen during demolition we'll meet with him after a construction schedule and try to work with him as well as the city codes with the demolition and do the by itself there's an impact on construction nobody is going to be parking in the white zone by the way, i walked by the white zone the driveway is 17 and a half feet distinct our property their, their buildings and 15 feet the white zone in front of the building for stepping stone not - the only parking during construction will be in front of

our building on hyde and on golden gate and we will comply with all of the parking requirements for all city construction in terms of the statements there was not an environmental impact report it is just not true it was provided with notice it is attached to this brief it is over a hundred packages it found there is no eir in terms of the mural we reached out to the all over the she expressed appreciation we reached out to her she's an opportunity to photograph it and she said she understands and wants to be considered had a new art project is being put up, of course, she'll be considered their temporary street art she's not a historically significant artist it is a nice mural but

that is matter of what happens when you develop properties in terms of please a nolte's concerns about the shadow impact found there is no impact with detail through the shadow analysis and it is discussed in our brief i understand that mr. nolte has a different view but he's not a qualified expert on this issue per i'd like to conclude look the issue with the post office is a red herring up to the post office and the letter that was given to you we've not righted before in that packet there's a letter from july 31st, 2015, from mary schneider a long time san franciscan her draft any blame to be given about the usage it should sit squaring on this u.s. post office extend the services it is up to the post office they have complaints with the u.s. prosecutor's office not

an issue with the property owner. >> just a quick question. >> yes. >> with respect to the adult facility you said you're going to follow the ordinances the ordinances are directed at people without disabilities and very well disabilities; right? so just saying your abide by the rules didn't address those issues you know you understand you take the appellants and the neighbors that are vulnerable to noise. >> right to let me address that. >> i was concerned about they're being that demolition been 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. through friday the ordinance says you can't be doing demolition other than

during daytime hours weigh try to meet with the planning department and the police department it is perhaps variance appropriate with compliance to satisfy their concerns by the city as other concerns of demolition rather a short period that takes 10 days and obviously talk about the periods it is appropriated we would do the best we can with it unless we get a surveillance from the ordinance we can do it at night and look at the feasibility of something like that yes there will be some disruption i'm not going to tell you no disruption we'll do the best to minimize it one concern the noise and one the parking issue the parking is not an issue. >> we talked about that. >> by the way, there's no pilot

drive in this project at all that's one of the major noise complaints. >> actually, the major noise concern is not demolition it is construction construction is the period is much along the demolition. >> that's true and again there is - there are the ordinance will comply and we'll do the best we can with it and obviously keep mr. wong informed of it and it is part of what you do when you live in an urban environment there is construction. >> we understand but i noticed in the conditions of planning approval there's nothing in there regarding construction hours and days also the noise issue as addressed in the planning

conditions only talks about the material doesn't talk about the exterior locations. >> i mean as we did it in 1050 valencia we have the conditions as well. >> are you finished i wanted to raise. >> i have a couple of other questions, sir. >> your 5 thousand square feet of commercial space on the ground floor is there a marketing plan for that. >> no. >> is it going to be subdivided. >> yes. 3 spaces again, we worked with the planning department mr. - how do we get it to there you go. >> yeah. he saw that. >> this is 31 hundred square feet and 167 hundred plus square feet and this is the smaller one

hundred and 41 secret and again, it is designed it is not for large retail it is designed for example the small one might be a fiat of some point worked with the planning department to fourth what was the most appropriate for this area. >> the issue of the post office has been throughout your project development but also throughout all the documentations that come to us how many non-governmental stores with either mailbox facilities or mailing facilities are there in this area. >> non-ghonl. >> yes. >> i don't know have we got that. >> as you may know are fedex

1915 (k) community first option could say. >> and two, that are governmental that are nearby at least two. >> i understand but honorable non-governmental. >> sounds like there are two to three two or three. >> more than that. >> the briefs indicate that post office only 20 percent the boxes are utilized and correct. >> how many it is - there's 8 thousand total boxes i believe and 2000. >> 2000? >> yes. >> excuse me. please you can't speak from there. >> the question also goes to the parking i'm quite aware of how contractors are and

suppliers are concrete services they park whatever they want to. >> well there they'll be cited if they don't park legally if somebody does something illegal they'll be responsible if we have continuing problems then probably we'll be responsible the project sponsor directly or indirectly and we'll have to answer it that. >> you'll are a have a community liaison. >> right but look we want to build this in a responsible manner and we are responsible we're not a developer that came in here at the last minute we've been a property owner for the last 50 years and you know we're doing our best to develop it in a way it make sense from our point of view as well as the communities point of view

and you obviously can't satisfy everyone with everything this is compromises. >> i understand thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to respond to a couple of questions and points raised in the testimony the subject lot is 77 feet wide and hundred and 37 deep the required rear yard is 25 percent a little over 34 and 1/3rd that results in 26 hundred square feet of rear yard area subtract i subject property is providing more 50 percent in total of open space but through

a courtyard that is of the north northwest corner of the property as well rooftop open space space in the courtyard in the brief and less than had thousand square feet of roof deck in receive that was conducted of the negative declaration you know step below for the blow the eir conditions were imposed related to construction related to the construction air quality no limits on hours of construction up to the building code that is up that to standard and addresses the concerns we typically have in the city there was no appeal of the environmental impact report this was adopted by the planning

commission as part of review those are most of the points i wanted to address questions about the bmr requirements and it does provide 12 percent of the 10 units on the property they have elected to provide that onsite there's been kind of request to have additional below market rate unit unfortunately they're providing what is required under the code and can't require an ad hoc additional requirements under the planning code and we're somewhat just to note under prop k prop c that was adopted that further limits our ability that was voted change by the electorate we used to have higher bmr requirements but the city voted to reduce that that was part of a bargaining to have

affordable housing but just wanted to note that we have limits in our ability to assess greater than the bmr requirements in the code today and a lot has come up about the post office the denial of the what is before you again, the planning commission action on the thirty 9 not even the variance but the thirty 9 can't result in the post office staying there indefinitely. >> we understand. >> i have one question. >> the rear yard then is inturnl less than 25 percent the total area is in excess of open space requirements. >> yes. and the depth of the rear yard. >> sorry so if i understand repeat question sorry.

>> let me find the number. >> the rear yard shows a 18 unit plus all right. and so that's a substantial reduction if the 25 percent based on the variance. >> so it is a modification under the thirty 9 and - >> understood. >> a couple of competing issues this is a corner property for corner properties we seek to have the building wall along the street frontage so in this case they're doing that along golden gate with the rear yard with the 34 feet depth their maintaining that street wall there and one of the problems with not having a greater courtyard and the fact

the depth of the lot going on along hyde street is 767 feet if deeper than providing a larger courtyard but finding a greater courtyard reduces the number of units and reduces the bmr. >> i'm raising that point of where different - the police and building code requirements for time and days of construction are extremely liberal i think 7 to 7. >> 7 days a week. >> 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week. >> that's no constraints. >> it's a condition that politics to all conditions in the city. >> i've seen the conditions the planning conditions that are set days and times. >> where the environmental review has found it necessary to

avoid the impacts and frementd the commission that is further goes those conditions but i don't think that that my recollection whether the hearing was the majority of testimony i think you heard was related to the post office certainly there are concerns impressed of the post office. >> last question is project council has indicated that the subdivision of the ground floor retail was that spaces one is 3 thousand something square feet some of the discussion came from planning? >> i wasn't involved in the discussions about that by within the 3 g zoning district it is the use are in general but the ground floor uses - >> that's quite large 3

thousand square feet particularly - >> but whether it is a fundamental space it would be changed and certainly they can divide that up a number of ways but the way the building was designed some assumes about the gary space. >> go ahead. >> not to put you on the spot mr. sanchez roughly several the public talked about this how many larger in fill buildings are we looking at in planning for the immediate area of the tenderloin. >> i don't have that data in front of me certainly not a high number what was put on the overheads would be i don't know the basz basis but the permit activity could be facing the window. >> it is highly developing something of a larger building.

>> i don't think their not that i'm aware of of the soft sites in development and the tenderloin overall this is certainly a larger project a greater impact but you know we've also seen other neighborhoods that have a greater number of projects as well. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> do you happen to know how the address 101 hyde come came to be that is 3 blocks up from market street. >> no. >> (laughter). >> curious. >> excuse me. if you have a response directly to that i object to hear it. >> kathy has a response. >> speak into the microphone. >> i walked it today it is the number is just progressing gradually does that answer your question. >> this is obvious.

>> i apologize. >> has nothing to do with with i was just curious yeah. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> and as a reminder this is under the planning code section 09 is the for discretion. >> and before us other things as well come forward so regarding noise do we address it now or later. >> not prepared to address it now. >> you know we know that it takes noise to do construction there's no doubt but you know there's got to be some limits there's some days that people can expect not to have any just

a second hammering noises or framing noises there will be a structure i'd like to see the project sponsor with the planning to come work with some reduction from what the code allows both from the planning department. >> the question of you know how they interact with the neighborhood direct your attention of the construction can be tested through the community liaison given the nature of complaints as far and other things will be held to a fairly good standard with respect to travel and their

impact because contrary to the answer they're building something at the edge of the property line and therefore you're going to have impact not only on the adjacent building but impact on the sidewalk they'll have to have some type of protection and be dpoifshgs of the pedestrians and everywhere else i'll leave it up to the liaison to deal with that to take care of those issues i would have thought to given the size of the project and the savvy of the people working on it they could have come up with a better plan than blame it on

the post office you know whether it involves some substance of a brown profit or establishing you're not talking about a great deal floor area that would accomplish the issue and i think given certain second times of our city's population it is a real question of a safe place for the mail given the fact that there are some fairly urban scrupulous landlord and property managers things disappear and we've had i remember one instance it didn't happen in front of this board but checks and things like that i think this is a real effort

i'm not going to do something that constitutes something illegal but the project sponsor to put forth some more positive ways of perhaps dealing with the commercial spaces with respect to the major needs of the neighborhood my comments. >> motion? >> public comment. >> this is one of damn if you do, damn if you don't i'm familiar with that corner that is a bad corner. >> it's a bad corner. >> it's a bad corner drug dealing and violence really bad people hang out there and to know help with no help from our federal government to make it any better as the proprietor in

that space as soon as my feeling as soon as something positive as that project can be built the better i work in the area and as a developer commissioner, i helped to develop some of this stuff the tremendous amount of construction occurring around the fulsome street between first and main and first or second and, yes that is noisy and 7 days a week but it is seeking the area that is completely underutilized and turned it into hopefully, a wonderful you know neighborhood if you damn if you do and damn if you don't if you go go solar slow it will take longer than if you go fast extending the hours

and, yes disturbance it is a damn if you do or damn if you don't situation i agree with commissioner fung i'd like to see creativity by the project developer for a retails for the benefits of the community but if one stays and opens up a can of worms post office that then you'll involve the federal government i don't want to go there. >> the project for the neighborhood is consideration of that corner is awful i think it is responsible for us would be very responsible of us to move forward rather than put any curbs on it. >> go ahead. >> that plain clothes is under going a lot because the building

association is putting a lot of - >> how should we handle it you want two motions. >> make one motion for both yeah. >> since it is one action. >> make a motion to deny the appeal on the grounds there is no error or abuse from the department. >> i'll hope that the project sponsor licenseds arrest commissioner honda we need to reaffirmative the environmental could have that the planning department didn't abuse its discrepancy including it's adaptation referenced in the motion. >> thank you madam director. >> on that motion public school commissioner fung

commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries 5 to zero. >> and commissioner president lazarus no further business before the board tonight. >> we're

good evening. this is the meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee of board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, our colleague david campos will

not be here today. >> city clerk: >> i think we need a motion to excuse our colleague. it's been moved that we excused david campos from this meeting. can we do that without objection? thank you. >> we have five items on our agenda, two liquor licenses at the very end. item no. 3 is supervisor jane kim is on the health code. my understand is she wants to continue that item to the call of the chair. we'll continue item 3. if anybody is here to speak on that, we'll hear on that during public testimony. >> please call no. 1.

>> city clerk: item no. 1. hearing implementation of civil service rule 115. >>supervisor eric mar: supervisor christensen reminded me that item no. 2 will be continued too. >> i also neglected to mention that sf govtv is televising us today. i want to thank them for televising us as well. >> item no. 1 is a continuation of hearings that we've held since 2014 from june 2014 over a year ago. this is a hearing to update