>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, november 4, 2015, of the san francisco general hospital the presiding officer this evening commissioner president ann lazarus and joined by the vice chair commissioner honda

and commissioner fung and commissioner swig commissioner wilson will be absent and brighten will provide the board with any legal advice at the controller is gary the boards legal assistant i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined by we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table is scott sanchez representing the planning department and planning commission and gene that the department of public works for street use please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other 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. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. 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. we will swear in or affirm

please note any member 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 please stand now. >> 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. >> okay. thank you very much commissioners a housekeeping matter item 11 appeal at 2518 filbert the parties have jointly requested a continuance for this to allow time for dbi to investigate the permit and the site conditions would have told you this sooner this came late this afternoon. >> motion.

>> so moved. >> thank you commissioner fung any public comment? moving item number 11? >> okay. seeing none on that motion to move this 18 of november commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig that motion carries and that item moves to november 18th the nechlt it general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when anyone here want to speak seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners. >> okay. seeing none we'll move to item 3 commissioners that's the consideration of the boards meeting minutes for october 2015. >> excuse me. additions, deletions, or changes to the

minutes. >> no, if not a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> thank you any public comment on item the minutes seeing none, we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries. >> then we'll move toe item number 4 that is a rehearing request the subject properties on 37th avenue a letter from the attorney for the permit holder for the permit gene verse dpw decided at this time the board voted with sdmdz to deny the permit on the basis the notice was defective the project is to constrict a wireless facilities we'll start with the requester mr. simon 3 minutes.

>> thank you. >> good evening, members i'm martin fin man, i'm the hero on behalf of the permit holder which is crown castle, llc now a number of issues were raised at the original hearing by the appellants and those are not the basis stated at the time for the boards decision to uphold the appeal and didn't think or deny the permit more identified in the agenda as being the grounds for the denial the boards ruling was based on solely on an alleged lack of notice issue so the other issues that were raised paralleled in the postponements response to our rehearing our emissions and asking about next g being a

large corporation and things like that are simply not relevant to the courts to the boards consideration and would not be a proper ground for having granted the appeal or having denied the permit so i'll pass over that and address the issue that is at issue has to do with with notice in the hearing several weeks ago too aspects of notice we discussed at the hearing and by the board was has to do with with the notation of whether notice is to be given for hundred 50 feet around a pole that has antenna also one hundred 50 feet that includes the battery it is not to require noticing for that the pole the entire intention of the ordinance including the

provisions has to do with with the placement of antennas and many have antenna including back up on poles and not required in those instance not the interpretation given to the notice by dpw who filed a brief in support of our request the way it was characterized that evening the notice were ambiguous i don't believe so but certain the notice that they're acting big there is a strong rule of policy and law when a provision is ambiguous it is given the interpretation that is consistent by the agency charged with casing that out in this case dpw in the course of granting hundreds of permits 9 notice and provision involves the pole with the antenna and

not the battery back up equipment. >> thank you. >> if we can hear from the appellant, sir okay didn't appear he is here oh. >> also have 3 minutes. >> hi, thank you so i want to first of all, express my gratefulness for protecting the residents and homeownership's of san francisco i want to thank you for your encourage and especially frank for hills encourage after our decision you gave the community hope the amount off people that were it was hopeless had lots of hope believed you cared about the residents and homeowners i thank you for that

regarding the specific rehearing request i wrote in my document there are two criteria you used to determine whether the case should be reheard and both of these conditions are not met the first condition i spoke about no manifest injustice in this case and so that one condition is not met not remotely met the second condition is that there are no new or different materials set of circumstances none here by the conditions that the board has set there should be no rehearing oozing i ask do board of appeals to deny this and once again protect the sense of san francisco i also although i don't think that is necessary newcomers

reasons this antenna should not be approved in that particular location failure to notify the residents safeties issues and many others i won't belabor that i'll end with this i mentioned previously i put the slide up again there has been a proliferation of antennas in san francisco the increase in there it or this year alone is sterilized of antennas once again how much is too much it is way, way out of control i once again ask you to please deny this rehearing and thanks for the courage you've shown as far. >> we'll hear from the

department now. >> good evening gene chang with the public works i don't have anything new to add i do want to say that department of public works supports the request for a rehearing based on the conditions on the permit different from the conditions on the tentative approval the discretionary was not identified as a basis for the appellants the difference in the permit conditions and kind of the approval were noted substantial and proper conditions included the tenant for notification in regards to the insufficient noticing for the battery back up on the second pole public works stands by the initial position the code was ambiguous on that

issue, however, we're in the process of amending the order to make that clear i'll be here to answer any questions you may have. >> at this point further notification will, off both poles; correct? >> looking at to get that into the amend. >> how much before that process takes place. >> i'm not not totally sure that is in the city attorney's hands. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment step forward. >> my name is john i'm here on a different permit i want to point out in article 25 it defines the facility as antennas and related facilities used to facilitate the provision of a

wireless services so this means both poles should be notified no argument in any book thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> hello, again i'm jordan here on a different appeal like to voice any support for are his appeal here today, i also want to revisit the idea the law is ambiguous nothing ambiguous about that language again to reiterate the antenna and all related facilities are to be notified within one hundred 50 feet not ambiguous times since the last hearing and now part of the work the dpw tightened up the language in the article and

change the basis of that is a result of comments solicited from t-mobile and verizon having to do with the remarks for the effected corps that is back to lobby and tighten this language it is that work that finally is doing now the work of restricting our jurisdiction over this matter pertaining to issues of notification i want to call your attention this is not something the dpw is doing on their own but coming from interested parties public comment that was solicited in this case. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay sierra club commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't see the rehearing request matches up with the

criteria in our policy and procedures. >> i agree. >> i concur the bar for manifest injustice is pretty steep not been met the permit holder didn't provide evidences that will sway that sway my motion. >> i move to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you then on that motion from commissioner fung to deny the request commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner swig that that motion carries 4 to zero and move on to item 5 another rehearing on 33rd after the board got a reserve from the attorney requesting a rehearing verse dpw on september at this time the vote was to deny the

permit on the basis the notice was defective the to construct a personal service ms. fin man. >> i'm martin fin man on behalf of with the party with the permit requesting a hearing crown castle, llc once again there was a lot of argued at the hearing and argued in opposition to the rehearing request it is simply not relevant and/or is actually a topic matter that is forbidden for consideration by the cities and states in considering the permit for wireless facilities let's put that aside and focus on the basis it was this bodies

reason for upheld the appeal and denying the permit the noticing matter and obviously i heard what the board said in response to the appeal matter that was bruised i would respectfully say i think this is manifest injustice here and there are different sycamores and there was error on behalf of the board with respect to the hundred and 50 foot notice that's not been the interpretation that was give to the ordinance or the regulation and doesn't, in fact, hundred and hearsay of permit were granted to a variety of telecommunication companies based on noticing on only antenna that hsa has to do with is wireless facility by defined by the ordinance and not per

referral materials that are part of many installations by pg&e and tomcast and a variety of people that cup the policies in a right-of-way not the interrogation never been a requirement again to the extent that is ambiguous and continent concept in law the interpretation given by an expert agency should be were what is debar believed what happens since then finally is going to set forth a new notice within one hundred 50 feet that was not the reminded at the time of that permit that was granted so to enforce a requirement not

there indeed is manifest injustice as far as the issue has to do with with different terms of conditions attached to the final approval for the preliminary or tentative approval that is not a noticing issue the notice was the tenors or terms and conditions attached to the tentative approval and dpw and others made a minor request granted over and over and in dozens of hearings to sync of u up the final approval what was given in terms of noticing the conditions for the tentative approval with that, i'll ask you to grant the rehearing. >> thank you. we'll hear from the appellant. >> good evening, everybody

okay. >> i'm going to show some more evidence on the notification. >> state your name for the record. >> i'm cammy. >> okay. >> okay. this is a bigger hole they didn't notify all the residents to this pole and also final even the antenna pole they failed to notify the residents the one on market-rate it is a corner lot they i have the signature from the residents this is all the - the residents they say they don't receive any, no, sir, and the second thing i

want to show last time we mentioned on the consent of that notification should have those simulation and also the antenna for the protest and the procedure for this protest the comcast attorney denied it question couldn't produce the evidence this time i bring a notice i took from the this is from telephone pole they didn't have any filth simulation okay. this is the only one i took another areas i took to show other streets they didn't have all the photo simulation they violate this content of this notification based on this i'll grant ask you to deny - deny the

hearing appeal you know thank you. >> thank you mr. chin. >> gene chin public works. >> again public works doesn't have anything new to add to support the request for a rehearing the appeal was granted on the basis the permit deferred on the tentative approval the discretionary was not identified as a basis for the appeal by the appellant, and, secondly, in regards to the noticing for the battery back up pole public works stands by pits initial position that it was ambiguous

and i also want to add the order is being amended due to the need to clarify the requirements based on issues that have been brought before the board thank you. >> mr. chin. >> yes. >> the previous person from the public stated no photo simulation on the documents that was attached to the poles is that a requirement of article 25. >> let me check. >> okay. >> take your time we have another case like this too. >> okay. >> commissioner i think you were saying you're you're willing to have an answer you, you if you want to wait until

after public comment that would be fine too. >> any public comment on this item please step forward. >> i'm johnston gay this is should be very clear in article 25 a notice by mail reminder required to give anyone residing workplace one hundred 50 feet of personal wireless facility and then we get the definition of the wireless facility it is as antennas and related facilities used to provide or facilitate provision of personal wireless services if you look at the law you shouldn't have to amend it both poles should be notified. >> any other public comment?

>> hello, i'm isabel i'm speaking on behalf of our community it is really eir resist before it was not required and all the companies didn't do that matters that the whole use of notifying so the community can state their stand on whether or not that is something we will be useful i think that without that notification to i don't see it is okay to it is not notified we've said allowed no enough that is a precedent setting case because that hadn't ever had one box now this is the device that is the last straw that broke the

camels back both poles and neighborhood have been oofkd with energy seeking equipment that we have to say no, we can't have any more or can't handle that poles are crying out and the people without notification we have to find a better way to relay our services that is 21st century problem then using 200 year old power poles that were designed to transmit power for the needs at that times need to go back to the drawing board and find a 21st century solution how to relate power without driving on the ancient system that was a wise man that lived many years

ago he said you can't put new wine into the old wineskin into the old vessel i think that is useful for us to remember now i also want to say we resent the language that castle crown used to ask for this rehearing we think they were patron ingress and condescending they were arrogant and devious in one sentence they said crown castle has carefully well that he alluded to the fact they were doing it to benefit the community they would realize it not to benefit the community we want them to realize that and thank you. >> thank you if you could fill

out a speaker that will be helpful is there any additional public comment on this item. >> hello, again i'm jordan speaking on behalf of the neighbors an 33 avenue i support their request here i want to say that maybe this is the straw that is breaking the camp he lives back actually totally irrelevant as crown castles attorneys said this ground is not used in literally hundreds of permits by dbi this doesn't matter it matters if it is applied to this case i want to put one thought-out there as a community as a citizeny here i feel like the only way to be notified what is going on with

the poles and with the sxhaugs of new facilities is through the notification vehicle of article 25 therefore the only way we know someone planning on putting a wireless box happens on the conforming of article 25 it is allowed by dpw and green lighted in our only grounds of defense is article 25 the terms are narrowly narrowing and narrowing through the utilization of this provision i want to call your attention it feels helpful we're constricted to have our argument within a narrow range of possibility that narrow rage is essentially a negotiation between an interested party in the city so thank you very much for your

time. >> any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, mr. chang are you ready to come back? >> gene changing yes photo simulations are required. >> does the city check any of the notifications regarding crown castles. >> yes. we do and i believe that i remember that those notices went out with photo simulations you can check. >> on the poles no version from the city it is expected that the company will provide them. >> they post it and give us a photo of the posting. >> okay. great. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> anything to add from the

last discussion. >> no i don't think the threshold has been met move to deny the rehearing request. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to deny commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries item of rehearing request at the subject property on 35 after a letter if martin fin man for the appeal verse dpw decided at this time the board voted 4 to one to deny the notice it was defective from the california inc. to construct a personal wireless facility. >> again, i'm martin fin man of,

llc on behalf of the are permit holder, llc i'll stress once again a variety of issues that were raised pe at the prior hearing that was received from the appellant that go to issues that are not relevant to the bodies consideration of the matters this evening and, in fact, are forbidden from consideration by itself city and county and the stats the focus on the issues before the board we've convincing shown there is manifest injustice and there are circumstances that are present it is really inane injustice and unfair to this permit holder and any permit holder to retroactively apply a new set of

standards not applied and contrary to the noticing that have been consistently used and grant many have been uphold in the appeals that truly if this isn't the dpngs of manifest injustice i'm not sure what is as far as and sort of the lynch pin is the fact that the boards believed there was ambiguity and dpw has now regulations that for the first time require the notice for the commit not noticing that has been applied to in the past that is fine going forward if indeed that regulation is adopted but in terms of applying such a new york with hundreds and hundreds of grants based on the boards

the departments interpretation i think is a manifest injustice as far as the other noticing issue raised over and again namely the final depictions of approval in a material way in the conditions that were with little tentative approval small issues of this nature are properly corrected over the course of denying an appeal and this board over and over and over and over none was mislead or deceived the notice that went out the conditions attached to the tentative approval not the final approval so dpw and my clients request we sync those up is in favor of notice and catering the notice that the neighbors received so and then the final point i think that dpw

has indicated the different what color it should be painted is entirely immaterial. >> could you please state your name. >> yes. >> on the previous case someone brought up the material it lacking the photo simulation aspect of that. >> i think. >> is that - required. >> i do believe our to include the photo simulation the contention that someone month after the fact or whatever so payroll pulled down the notice off the pole and finds pages missing not relevant i'm not suing but that is an argument in many of the hearings that someone we have to give mailed notice and someone said i didn't

get a mail it maybe gods truth they don't remember or pages missing from when was posted during that time we know what we're supposed to post. >> okay. >> swearing we didn't provide the photos. >> generally how many sheets of paper on the pole. >> oh, my goodness about 3, 4, 5 is that 3 separate or one with a staple and taped. >> i don't know specifically if you saw what the gentleman had in his hand but a slip sheet. >> so someone has the ability to remove them them. >> someone that is separate pages and in the plastic slip sheet. >> that answers my question thank you. >> mr. fineman i sit here and

you're talking about manifest injustice and it remembered me of an argument with a cop as i got a ticket for returning a stop sign i said you know i've been through e rolling there that go at the scene for years and never got a ticket. (laughter) and therefore i claim manifest injustice because your giving me a ticket >> just because you've been getting our way and rolling through the stop signs for several years didn't mean it is manifest injustice it means that there is accountability being served in my opinion secondly, in the previous case which i didn't bring this up but now the opportunity it is written in the brief by the

appellant that finally is going done the community by not verifying the notification in article 25 here's the key point and by essentially taking the word with the no - the word of the appellants and rubber staging the approval of those permits the keywords rubber stamping in ever there was manifest injustice it was done to the neighborhood here by yourselves and or dpw by the practice of rubber stamping where you know the red, white, and green of north beach was used you know in the sunset and has gotten to this is manifest injustice. >> to the neighborhood and i

don't think that what is happening here accountability and we're holding accountability for not giving proper notice we're holding accountability to putting the wrong information on that notice so you know the cop is quentin e finally going to give a parking ticket on the last two item is just. >> i'm happy to respond to that. >> you made two points one the anything else of rolling there a stop sign maybe you got away with that but there is no question that is in violation of the law here we believe the notice violation are clear it only requires notification from one hundred 50 feet if the pole

it is ambiguous and also xhutsdz one hundred 50 feet from the battery back up pole that is a different circumstances not i was rolling introduce a at the scene for years and getting away with that it is a different situation the most can be said in an argument that is ambiguous and what we've done is we've gone forward two the consistent interrelation not just our interpretation but the interpretation of the city that has given to us and ever other wireless carrier out there with the verbiage of the ordinance and consistent with the regulations and consistent with the hundreds of time practice of by dpw and let me stop you there if that's the case something in article 25 that says antenna only. >> that would be a yes or no. >> no.

>> okay. >> so the rolling at the scene is very pertinent to this situation. >> i don't think so but - this is the wireless facility ordinance what it has to do with not has nothing to do with everything on poles the battery backs up all kinds of companies do it no noticing requirements so the answer to our precise question is no what is the orientals about giving notice of wireless antenna facilities yet not have miscellaneous electronic. >> but for the services that are required for providing our service i think that is at this point the question has been answered thank you. >> thank you. >> you can hear from the appellants now.

>> hi, i'm jordan canter the appellant on this can i thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak so i'll say there a significant i i didn't your authority is limited to a technical interpretation of article 25 crown castle turn out to claim the language their permit was denied is a technicality they want to insist on the rules of game demands a do over this is a logic of a bully not a school yard and the issue is crystal clear you voted on october 7th

to revoke the application opposing the opposition and everything all concerned parties p had ample opportunity to present and our ruling was you think ambitions crown castle lawyers say in american people area to a immaterial difference was the only reason that was revoked that was a tremendous of your decision while indeed it may be a case that there was one factor stated a justification for a vote at the hearing and arguably - anyone can remember there was many factors, however, once the board found grounds other factors became mute this is to bring it to light perhaps the basis for further litigation and you're under no obligation to

help crown castle the standards for a granted rehearing is outlined art 5 subsection the board migrant a rehearing only if new circumstances has arisen or sycamores known at the time could have effected the hearing and crown castle has therefore to justify a hearing has not been met a rehearing is not to revisit the merit of the application but referred to - they have appealed to the manifest injustice in our rules explicitly as an extraordinary case not to revisit the facts of the case more an appellant to rehear it and they've shown no

new evidence in light of the standards of nyu materials and the extraordinary sxold said it was a manifest injustice they failed to have new evidence and neither rerespectfully ask crown castles request be denied. >> thank you, mr. chin. >> gene chin public works i wanted to say for the ford record that public works supports the request for the rehearing the appeal was yantd on the basis the conditions were different on the permit than on the tenant of approval and it was not originally identified as a basis secondarily in regards

to insufficient 90s public works ♪ is process of the issues going forward i don't know - and any public comment on item this item >> good evening, members of the board of appeals i'm from sxhains office we said there are

requests for rehearing for installation and which are items 6, that and 8 only the agenda we understand the confines under which the city must operate in granting permit for the weefls installations given we have the federal guidelines, however, our message today to the companies requesting installation permits is to better work with our neighbors on the signed preferences by our city while most of them wouldn't deny the installation but there is a way to achieve this in a better way supervisor tang and supervisor mar have issued a letter to wireless carriers and their networks to better work with our city on neighborhood appropriate

setting we want to stay this request again and thank you, everyone thank you for your time and my comments applied to items 6, 7 and 8 tonight thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? >> are you not one of the appellants okay. >> go ahead. >> my name is lisa i'd like to offer any support to my neighbors. >> speak into the mike. >> i'll effected by this permit application i want to reiterate briefing some of the portions of the notification process i think now the applicant is minimizing and reiterate the unambiguous of the

earlier also unambiguous under fine man application was - punished during the evening he also not limited to that some houses may have been missed in that like tloel a stop sign and article 25 have not been met thank you. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, i do not think this threshold for rehearing has been met therefore i'll month to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you commissioner fong on that motion. >> commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries

item no. 7 another rehearing on 30th avenue from martin fin man requesting the rehearing for this hearing birmingham verse dpw on december 2015 the board asked to deny the notice was dennis herrera effective it is networks of california and personal wireless facility start with mr. fin man. >> good evening pornography crown castle, llc as in the previous hearings there's been a lot of sort of x treason matters by the last hearing in their appeal brief and in their opposition to the rehearing request matters that

are not part of the rehearing request and matters not recognizable as part of the standards under article 25 or indeed matters that federal law or state law or both for bid a city or state or county from taking into consideration and granting the permit for a wireless facility. >> mr. fineman i want to make sure this item is being translated is it okay thank you. go ahead. >> thank you. >> again, the actual basis the board noted for granting the appeal was the notice issue i will say once again that there are two aspects to the notice the business of one hundred 50 feet from the pole of the antenna equipment and those associated electronics a battery

back up which is a ascertainly different someone that is in common with many types of facilities in the right-of-way to which no notice requirement this is not part of purpose of this wireless facility ordinance and finally was the interpretation we used was not something we dream of but consistently utilized by expelling for not only my client but for all wireless companies in san francisco and that's the consistent interpretation additional i would say it is at very definition of new set of circumstances that change pulling the rug out from under us and manifest injustice to apply a new standard relieving o

retroactively or dpw indicated they have now a pending change to the regulation that requires that requires that going forward with the manifest injustice to apply it retroactively we also talked about the issue whether the conditions of approval were the same on the final approval or the tentative approval with the neighbors renoticed what tentative with the approval conditions those are the conditions we asked and the expelling asked either conditions approval attached to this permit no noticing issue present with the neighbors got notices are the notice and dpw asked to be attached to this permit. >> mr. fineman. >> yes. >> we've heard the glass half full and empty our interrogation of what dpw is changing the

rules i want to say my interrogation of dpw wouldn't be the interrogation to take the dpw is clarifying the rules that have's existed but making it much more clear two separate pieces of equipmental be that separate are part of installation. >> not bans the consistent interpretations that dpw has given through the rules their, their manifesting and like the stop sign running to and others applications have been out there before. >> it is a different interrogation the constant consistent was the noticing from one pole not from the battery and dpw has always given that interpretation 100 percent of the time and paroling e proposing a new interpretation

to change the rules going forward and may indeed adopt that regulation we have a different set of rules. >> we'll hear from the appellants now. >> mr. birmingham are you sharing our time. >> my name is john i beg your pardon ham. >> hold on one second set that for 6 minutes we'll have interpretation thank you. >> go ahead. >> i'm here on behalf of my neighbors and myself to oppose this we've argued a flailed notification process in article 25 it clearly states that notice by mail is required to be given to anyone ownership or residing within one 50 feet of the wireless facility and if you read that mr. fineman

and look at the definition of permanent wireless facility as antenna and those to provide or facilitate the provision of personal wireless service may be the first 200 permits none brought this up it is obviously if the read the article that was always open for argument and must have never been done before and also, we didn't have a sketch when was given in the mailing on the pole now if you went to the pole today and looked at it it is nothing has been removed no sketch so the mailing we got is different than the notification on the pole i feel this is grounds of in uphold the revoking of that permit thank you very much.

>> good evening i'm the interpreter. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> wherever i on the door i see that the antenna is right in front of my door. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> for the chinese culture it seems to be you think lucky and unfortunate. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> san francisco a multi culture city. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i hope you can understand our culture and concerns.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> the fellow in front of my door is not at all enough. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm sorry face the drawing as if you're looking at that face the drawings as if you're looking at it on the - >> oh, sorry. >> thank you. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we had to extend the old pole to make it taller. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and the pole has no power supply. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and you had to get another table from the other pole you

know to get to this one. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i would like to ask if it stays to add another pole on top of that. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> if something happens would someone - >> i don't understand there are so many other poles there. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> why they have to pick this one the oldest one and shortest one and no power source. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we are the immigrant from china. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> for so many years i think the government is ready to for the citizens. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we are the sense of the san

francisco and love this city. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i hope the board will consider the safety of the public. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> please don't issue the permit for the crown castle. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you if we could get a speaker card with our name on that that will be helpful mr. chin. >> again and again chin public works supports the rehearing and the appeal is on the conditions differed with the tentative approval and insufficient noticing public works is in the

process of amending the order due to the need to clarify the requirements based on initials that have been brought before the board that's all i have to say thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> hi names a andrea barker the san francisco coalitions to ground facilities i want to make the board aware that crown castle continues to speak of the changes being made to article 25 even as they testify it is my understanding perhaps you can connect it my understanding those changes to

article 25 will not be enforces until they're written up and commented on and then that will have to be approved by the entire board of supervisors in this case, the changes are not imminent i understand a great deal of lobbying on the part of the telecommunications destroy i myself wrote a letter to the dpw within the period required playing out the changes being made were specific reaction to the past appeals and to the benefit of the 12 coming industry i would like to poet we do not know if those hangs will be approved those of us who feel that the straw the last straw is

being mounted on the poles as we speak are hopefully that those changes will not be made to the detriment of the citizens of the san francisco every one of our appellants tonight has commented on that i would like to add oh, it's not going to be big enough i'm sure i don't think can you see that at all. >> can you do that? >> that's all i got you took it this afternoon. >> okay. >> thank you. >> let's get it up here so that you can see that the new antenna is, in fact, visibly learn than the sail boat on the bay those are the structures that those corporations are putting in our neighborhoods tonight you're hearing about the

richard and the sunset you were not constrained to react to russian hill you can see not minor curtains and the city of san francisco it is time for them to pay attention thank you. >> any other public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioner fung. >> i'll make it this time and for variety. >> i believe that the bar for manifest injustice has not been met and deny it for a rehearing and okay motion from the vice president to deny the request on that motion commissioner fung. >> commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries. >> moving on to item number 8 the last rehearing request

subject property on 40 avenue from martin finemaning requesting a rehearing that was decided october 2015 at this point the board voted the permit holder is networks of california inc. to constrict a personal wireless facility mr. fineman. >> good evening once again i'm martin fineman here on behalf of the project sponsor of castle crown i'll suppressing stress once again there is a large number of issues that are outdoor of the purview of this rehearing that was raised by the appellants of both in the hearing before and in their perceive on the appeal and once

again in their brief in response to the rehearing a matter of law this body is not allowed frankly to be take into account in terms of denying the permit i wouldn't dwell further on the issues but again, i on the issues are similar to those i will discuss namely but what the boards based on its decision on previously at the last hearing was the notice issues and is interpretation is now being given to require one hundred foot notice from both poles that cantonese the wireless equipment as well as that in which the battery back up equipment is placed is an entirely different interpretation applied not only it this particular permit not

only a different interpretation every applied to crown castle but ever applied in connection with the other permits under this ordinance and hundreds of those permits were grand and this interpretations not given mr. chin has indicated a number of times that dpw plans have a new ordinance a new regulation that would indeed make that a requirement but it is manifest injustice to apply retroactively a requirement that didn't exist in time the other issue has to do with with the conditions of approval that were mistakenly attached by dpw to the final permit that differs in a small and immaterial respect from the conditions from the tentative approval in their all of that

they're small and i am material and most of all they don't there is a prism one the noticing and there is no noticing issue the notice that went out to the neighbors with the conditions we and dpw are indicating should be attached to the permit no fault or lack of flaw in noticing i would urge that the manifest injustice be corrected and the reserve hearing request be granted thank you. >> we'll hear from the appellant. >> my son would like to speak after i'm done is that part of my speech. >> 3 minutes. >> i'm amanda i filed an

appeal we're here to entertainment crown castle and dpw with the manifest injustice when on october 7th the board granted the appeal and revoked crown castle permit proper notice is not a novel theory as crown a castle would have you believe also the notice within a one and 50 feats the second pole is ambiguous i didn't believe that ambiguity should benefit crown castle they're in the process of amend their requirements of article 25 that indicates they recognize a problem manifest injustice means something when is obviously unfair or shocking to the conscious is refers to a observable that not an issue to

rely on they didn't like the boards interpretation of the law manifest injustice will occur in the board grants crown castle - based on an whoops by expelling and the board erred the interrogation under article 25 the due process is not beyond local authority crown castle failed to meet the zoning laws when when they failed to notify the neighbors of the one hundred and 50 feet variance. >> do you mind talking into the mike there we go. >> my name is own i'm 10 years old the proposed site for the antenna that verizon seeks to install is out my front window verizon submitted with their

application it will be a few feet from where and play baseball and with my recreation area the antenna less than one hundred 50 feet away from my classroom i'll be exposed to the emissions twenty-four hours that days a week most people live leave their homes for several hours a day which means they would have less exposing exposure but my exposure is constant my friends will be exposed 7 days a week milestone my mom said the current laws don't take into consideration the potential harm from the associate my mom says your board can't deny this on what harm happens or other kids go to school i want to ask

verizon to reconsider the proposed location and not puts this in any school communities i don't think that people from verizon and crown castle would want this for their children either. >> good job big. >> okay. we'll hear from the department excuse me. >> gene chin public works tough act to fellow uh-huh. >> public works is supporting the request for the rehearing just for the record the arrogant was permitted they differ from the approval and as a base for basis for the appeal and secondly, public works is in the process of amending the

departmental order due to the need for the clarification of issues brought before the board. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? >> yeah. he do have to comment on the this is my excuse me. >> that this has been a big scheme they have been putting free phones for a lot of people and this wireless thing has been you know getting money and taking rich and poor to accommodates more they've been trying to tell me

about my rights and tell me things that is when it is my money it's been took out if that process i'm a warning them to stop scams are not going to make it. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> hello, i'm jason mercer i live on 40th a few houses down from amanda i have pictures of the pole that the unit in front of her house and in front of the holy school across the street

one of the reasons for the rehearing should be denied. >> overhead please. >> so we say the approximate proxy to the school the harm that can be done the notices on the poles for the boxes they're ill it ill two small to read until your in front of them this is a health hazard you shouldn't be within 3 feet of pole

this is the issue of the aesthetics very, very unattractive and i think one important one the safety this is the bottom of the box in front of the holly name school as you can see it is so rusted and the wires are showing thank you very much. >> thank you that i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> hat i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >>at i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >>t i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >>i am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >>am commissioners, the matter is submitted. >>m commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners beside the motion i was going to state i'll state for side record the notice was inefficient therefore the

department erred i'll move this rehearing has inform basis under our rules and therefore should be denied. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig thank you that motion carries we'll move on to items 9 and 10 both 9 is san franciscans for well, they're filed by the san franciscans for a reasonable growth and against the zoning administrator the first on 530 brandon street from the august to justin at the property trust of rear yard open space exposure and mixed variance for 27 variance for work units and 10 transmittals on brandon street 36 work units and others on 34

brandon street appeal that is appeal 1 dash 121 pennsylvania avenue appealing the granting on 2015 to justin shoe of backyardship exposure to legalize 4 dwelling units in two work units and others work units commissioners, i received word before the meeting started the appellant sue hester is not able to attend she's noted requesting a continuance but not able to be here abag because of her health so i would like to your honor, it to you if you want me to consider a continuance in any event or hear if the attorney here for the determination holder at a minimum to see what they'll suggest.

>> that will be - >> okay. >> just on the issue of the continuance. >> well. >> i'd like to hear that first whether the permit holder is willingly for a continuance. >> okay. >> thank you my name is allen murphy from llp on behalf of the variance holder on the question of a continuance we, of course, understand that ms. hester couldn't be here we spoke on a prior continuance ever that matter she asked for a 3 week continuance due to a separate health issue and agreed not to have a continuance we'll grant that continuance to tonight so we understand the situation she's in at the same time, we're concerned that

additional continuances could lead to further continuances and this has been quite a long process we respectfully ask the matter to be heard tonight. >> i'd be interested in hearing that that would say appropriate. >> okay. >> yes. that's fine. >> with no motion to continue we'll go ahead and mare on the merits there will be 14 minutes you can speak if you need them. >> right. >> again for ms. hester's absent you was not going to make a formal presentation but i'll make that if the variance holder i'm also available for questions in brief we respectfully ask the board uphold the zoning administrator's and reject the appeal in this the board needs to hear a presentation i'll be

happy to or questions i'll be happy to to address if. >> hearing from the zoning administrator will be helpful for me at least. >> i have several questions. >> you want to hold those. >> i'll hold. >> after the zoning administrator. >> so mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department that i don't have much to add the variance letters you in the packet their grabbed and to allow the legalization of dwelling units otherwise they're not to be grant it requires the removal of a dwelling unit and many of the tenants in the building the variance was heard last september subsequent to that discretionary review by ms. hester as part of project ms.

hester didn't attend the variance meeting i asked to granted the with a discretionary review approved the projects and will be substantially a building permit one of the points ms. hester raise as part of discretionary review their concerns about other violations on the subject property that was constructed for several buildings and after they did receive the approvals and inspectors the linens were created above and beyond but ms. hester's raised concerns about the remaining units where they're operating and prior to the discretionary review hearing we did a curry review of business licenses commercial

take place as notice for restrictions that are attached require those not only residential but have the opportunity commercial component as well those who don't know the work is not technically residential for most purposes of the planning code that when those units were developed they were able to develop in areas not allowing the residents uses and not subject to the same rirmentz as affordability 0 certainly some saw that as the approval process i understand ms. hester's concerns want to make sure those are truly ad lib work and as residential units and as part of legalizing the residential units but parts of project and gordon's if they can't demonstrate the compliance we have a condition that requires

them to develop a plan to demonstrate experience if they can't demonstrate that they'll have to bring that into compliance of residential units and appreciate ms. hester's attendance to detail analytical as part of the process it details the timeline but want the board to uphold the decision here we'll move forward legalizing the residential units on the property making sure their proper and moving forward bringing the rest of the building into compliance. >> so can you give us a remind us of the brief history they bought those building when. >> i believe the project sponsor will give the details that was recently within the last two or three years.

>> it was - >> yeah. >> and so clearly something was done illegal he remember when those buildings were built i physically remember visiting the one on pennsylvania and because that was new and novel in that neighborhood. >> you poke to but am i interpreting our comments the previous owner we know that nexus is not responsible for this blatantly disrewarded the law and all of a sudden putting up walls and putting in new doors to create residences. >> yes. that's correct. >> so what happens this is not a shack either of those buildings are a

shack i mean their substantial buildings those are high profile buildings their high profiles by the fact they're the first of they're kind in the neighborhood how is the contribution of ownership three years ago how is to it not appealable know that is possible for anyone to break the law and putting of u up doors if they do it and don't get caught 38 they get away with that but in sfrtsz of occupancy how does the previous owner get away selling something not being held accountable for blatantly breaking the law

i mean, if we could go back in time and somehow sanction or penalize the owner we would like to side that to discourage this if happening again, the prior owner acquired the buildings knowing the legal state and came up with a plan for compliance they can detail further but the compliance when necessary found out that new working was not created because of laws become effective in 2000 i think their reaction to remove the units entirely and there was objective much concern and about the loss of housing but the supervisors was involved with the property owner ultimately the program to legalize which is what we're seeing and reviewing today, the path forward i think we're working this was is city

attorney's office a pattern of bad practices by the previous developer on there and other projects they could go after them to gain compliance through either removing the illegal use or legally they're pursuing the path to legalize today. >> how in the contribution of ownership i bought and sold buildings a lot of these paperwork and time at city hall not a shack high visibility of properties how u how is it a reconciliation the new title is saying it is that someone didn't notice and there is not an nov you know the

seller at least to catch their attention maybe not a good idea. >> no inspection we have a 3 hour residential record when residential properties are changing hands a reports generated not a site visit so asian-american that's what happened here the property changed hands and the city is not involved in that transaction and i know. >> so, in fact, go what cough happened because no harm, no foul and no notice no foul is it fair to say that if we want to make everything clean and contrary could have continued with the knowledge they're operating illegally and that was the way we wanted and

represented to us so with a lot of sdpith to clear the titled and make things straight and that's correct i think they initially connected our department and asking about the pass forward would be so they did initiate the proposal how to bring the property into compliance. >> in her absent in the documentation from sue hester that that is the way of the point of her contention is who's going to hold those illegal donorers accountable not necessary the buyer has nothing to do with the guys that broke the law which you know they it seems to

me they get away with one or two and even though - i applaud ethics for getting up and trying to get it straight even though it is still illegal. >> maybe two responses in the first part holding the past developer accountability indians i understand the engineer in those projects was jimmy jen someone who has been investigated by the city and i know that has had actions taken by the city i think we try to hold those accountable and then on moving forward you know, i appreciate sue hester about the working and not just this project but the others trying to insure their brick units and innovate residents in disguise

they should be made to pay the predicament affordable housing fees and impact fees had those units been proposed back when the building was built they actually would have far fewer gas stations but this is legalized so their impact fees there are affordable housing requirements their subject to so anymore expensive to do that now but the project sponsor is seeking that we put a condition for a compliance plan it make sure the other ad lib working have available. >> i'm sorry if that's not the case they're more expensive their work if have to provide parking and didn't have to provide open space the same you know those requirements are different just look at what the parking does to the cost of a unit you know

but if we were developed as residential like because those are technically dwelling units that are being legalized had they done transmittals in 2000 there were no eastern neighborhoods impact fees so. >> you compared to descendants and less buildable area he 0 doubt - >> are you done. >> go ahead i have several questions. >> ged. >> you mentioned earlier in compliance a 3 month period and they're not in compliance to say something they have to go through the same process to legalize as residential. >> yes. >> so that is the pass moving forward and would be to if they're not operating in compliance with notice restrictions our notice to

legalize these as residential units. >> in the space. >> it depended on the individual units whether their variance or level of variance but or yes most likely variance requirements. >> when i look at the drawings it appears that the illegal bifurcation of larger units into two smaller units is shows in a couple of places it skats where there was a equal that was an in fill it wasn't that clear in terms of what it added up to the extra unions that were created is that the case of additional units. >> yes. my understanding that

all of the units were created out of the living space of approved. >> let me rephrase some of them were a double with in terms of both messing new type of work and it shows some the drawings shows an in fill wall they indicated where the wall was able to be split into two units it didn't add up i can't tell how they created the number of extra residential units. >> maybe the pardon may be able to go into greater daily my understanding no physical expansion of the building to accommodate. >> aligned. >> it was - >> it didn't show from the drawings that occurred. >> some were easier to fascinate and some adrc one wall

in and bifurcating a space. >> i can ask last question then illegal construction was there an nov and that was bringing this to our attention we the project sponsor we didn't initiate that but i can't say if deploying would have issued that. >> at the time the project sponsor the original permit holder built those would they have gotten this amount of units is there a reason they elected to divide those units up and make illegal units rather than ask for them. >> i have to go back and look at it under the current eastern neighborhoods we did remove in

any districts density limits that faeflts the legalization of those units it would be they were at the maximum capacity at the previous approval. >> they could have made them bigger. >> if their elizabeth work a required mesne and maximum space since those units are divided are they 25 percent of the footprint; right? >> i'm not aware of a requirement for the mesne it is a characteristic but not aware of the requirement lib work. >> that is creating two levels because some type of - >> no requirement the reason why they put in mesne a lot of

those started in older industrial building with a floor if they kept the mesne to 1/3rd didn't center to have a second exit are called a floor. >> so - >> that's the reason why in a high floor inform floor space you'll gain extra space. >> last question it is a significant amount of units and because of the year of the property being built through the qualify in rent control so under the current developer depths or not purchased it in that condition maybe that should be grant we need housing at this point but additional penalty for not obeying the law this is got to be something else championships i did it and now approve that. >> under the schemes no way to

kind of extract the penalties along the lines of requiring maybe the units be rent-controlled it is maybe something to be studied in terms of the process from the planning code for legalizing the dwelling units in the building itself that the units be legalized if this building is subject to rent control the unit that is be legalized is subject to rent control. >> the current legalization only one unit per building; correct. >> yes. generally one unit over the density. >> there's is asking for quite a bit more than that more negotiation. >> something like that perhaps the only mechanism could be the development agreement with the city that requires the option by the board of supervisors and negotiation with the city and perhaps something we can looking for other similar large projects

in the future. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry, i have one last question the open space variance was it discussed as an alternative to introduce open space on the roof. >> we and have those discussions at the hearing i don't know if staff discuss that further if interest be technical issues that cannot be overcome to provide additional space and maybe the dr report. >> maybe they can discuss that not aware of that being a feasible option. >> thank you. >> commissioners did you have a question for inspector duh.

>> i'll go first ever a notice of violation issued on the property. >> i didn't check. >> now will there is a inspectors on this property or notice of violation issued. >> if someone files a complaint yes. >> okay. >> that's how we handle it we got a complaint so someone will be assigned to it. >> is there that i am no public comment then mr. murphy i think questions for you and rebuttal time as well. >> allen murphy i'll be happy to answer any questions i know. >> if you want to make a statement if you utilize it.

>> right. >> no i don't think there is anything further i feel i need to add but i'll be happy to to answer to the units mix and count. >> start with that. >> of course, not included in the brief noted cumbersome but walk to the count in the buildings essential a little bit difficult to see on the plan but 530, 32 work union eased 10 additional units established and dwelling units 542 brandon 9 additional dwelling units and others lib units then finally 208 pennsylvania other units we're potentially the confusion on pennsylvania 4 units that wouldn't be with the health and

safety reasons i had to do this before the hearings those had units it maybe hard to tell on the plans maybe that's part of confusion you were exercising before if you want to i'll walk through through the plans there's a number of planned sheets. >> not but perhaps would you say that the large majority of units were created by the larger one dividing it and a half. >> that's my understanding between 4 and other times installing walls on a single floor 35 unions enlisted into 075 and by previous developers. >> same question i asked did da any decisions i providing the open space requirement on the

roof. >> we looked at that and ultimately that was determined that is not sufficient to meet the open space requirements so that means is that was the initial preference to incorporate it on the roof a fee associated with the open space area so we could have made that work on the roof that would have been any clients preference but staff said it was not feasible. >> and i think if i'm remembering correctly maybe the square footage of the roof. >> please step forward. >> i'll confer to better answer our question.

>> that's right it was both the square footage ordinances and also there were ada issues getting the elevator up to the roof. >> no elevator to the roof. >> interesting. >> 4 stories okay. >> perhaps i'll ask your question that on my list but those were illegal residential units that your legalizing through this process which means they're not under rent control. >> excuse me the building was built after 1979 or 80 they're not subject to rent control. >> oh, i see. >> s building are all rental correct. >> all rental. >> are they certified as

condos or rentals. >> those are their run better to be safe than sorry by rentals. >> no condo man on the property. >> no condos map on the property. >> oh, that is all condos if so. >> that is a large problem. >> my apologies a condo map but not rented. >> condo map is specific to i mean, that's why there is a condo map and not prior because during the title in escrow transfer that shows up but in the legal description and because there is 10, 9, 8, had additional units that condo map is incorrect it didn't show the accurate count and further up on the question yes, we know the

property is built after 1979 but illegal units will the owner or project sponsor make those legal units. >> i don't believe. >> i don't believe that is an option under stale they prevent rent control of units after 1980. >> can i ask a brief questions are all the sizes the units uniform. >> no different size the rental and residential units within the scope of the seven hundred and 50 or some 550 and 850. >> there is variation there is

for whatever reason the building was built with different square footage of the units in the complex. >> i have rmg from a long time ago of the pennsylvania building i believe that was converted from an industrial space and everything was we'd it was not meant to be a residential building is configure the way it was laid out so i see that was my only question. >> that's it. >> thank you. >> . >> mr. sanchez something more. >> in responses to commissioner

honda's condos thank you so i will for the city and county surveyor to take into account that and determine how to potential remap the building then file a new condo map potentially to literally to look at those issues, and, secondly, in regards to the rent control only limited circumstances where quote quoted new rent-controlled units are create through the trinity project on market street which was in parts the demolition of a rent-controlled units building and new construction those rent-controlled units were restored similar to park merced part of a development with the supervisors to replacement rent-controlled units and the legalization of units subject to

rent-controlled units the legalized will be subject to rent-controlled units through the legalization process but generally not in a case like this i've seen you have a building that is post rent control that is seek to legalize units i've not seen the scenario those are subject to rent control. >> not to interrupt you but part of negotiation between some of the new construction in the mission on new construction that they would part of negotiation was that a certain part will be rent-controlled units is that true or not. >> discussion about the levels of bmr a city program for bloefrts that is the rental but in terms of the new construction

projects not replacing rent-controlled units i'm not aware of. >> their increasing the density. >> in some of the projects yes, that's the proposal but not that i'm aware of of new rent-controlled units not otherwise replying within building that are subject to rent control and for one i'll discuss that with my colleagues. >> mr. sanchez could you - it is starting to come to me in my hard drive is slower but i believe that those properties when they were approved in 1999, of course, the in youry school at a time it was the top nearing the top of the tech a housing shortage in san francisco what else is new and money flying everywhere and people ronald reagan were paying too much for

real estate and condominium releasing that was an opportunity that the developer took to build the condo projects by the time it was built whoops you know a flip-flop in the real estate market and condos were unbeknownst saleable so obviously that was there was a reconfiguring of the intent of use what happens there when if one sets forth to build condominiums the market busts and suddenly that was as a condo map is and have been developed for financing purposes obviously none of the condos sell and decided to go rental apartments

what should have happened there or generally happens. >> 1999 was my first day as as interim at the information counter. >> i was graduating high school. >> very well. >> it is not uncommon and saw our a last great recession any new construction through the map process they can't say do it a later date to go through the rental process and we saw a lot of projects with the owner when the market tangdz and the rebel market was stronger than the selling market and equivalent it was vacated they saw the condo map and decided to sell but

almost everyone got the condo map and had that possibility at a later time so no implications that locks you into a ownership structure only something that is backed in to the project so that you don't have to go back and try to get it mapped out later. >> yeah. they'll have to go do the condo map process that is not feasible once you start selling the units it is more complicated. >> you remember the history of the work units. >> how they developed. >> a bits under julian and others. >> 1996. >> we saw the first wave. >> 95, 96.

>> a down site for real estate that whole period and so those actually came back came about through a co-change was originally developed because of political constituencies in other words, to maintain the residency of the city and on developers because they could take certain charges you know out of valuation and performances in terms of parking space and open space and, etc., etc. i remember they went wild then. >> we have documents you know earthquake to 89 and committee in 2 to 6 and loss came first

and.com. >> then ultimately that was another supervisor in 2002 that introduced the work unions lib work is a concept that is in the planning code you can have residential as you as accessory integrated into the art space that was intent to be. >> originally. >> yeah. then to have a broader use that could be on the working component of that but it's a great history. >> sorry going backwards. >> it was great. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> plural are submitted. >> i think that what's been

done make sense in terms of making something a little bit better not low la better but anecdotal most of us heard of lots used in terms of compliance throughout the years never knew for a fact that you know a lot of them were in compliance in fact, most of ann disposal were not in compliance that is here nor there a process i would hazily example that the cost of that housing is probably not extravagant therefore i'm prepared to support the variance and what it applies.

>> the concur the issues i have i believe that my follow commissioner brought up regarding the condos is currently, the way the building is confederate noted sold as a exonerated to whoever purchased that building knew that when necessary created those walls by legalizing the units - so what happens is when a condo map it is last week buying a house it gives us a footprint but the way the building is xhrdz that not sold individually by legalizing them and living them them reroute their floor plan in the selling them prior because of the way the map is incorrect i believe that we have a need for housing but we've just by allowing this

to happen we've pretty much approved something and gave a gold stamp that was something illegal a good number of units 10, 19, 27, 3 it out of hundred and 10 i am not that's 20 or thirty percent of free volume with no implications and no penalties so i'm not 100 percent in line with that. >> you know i understand the

point of view. >> is that so mr. sanchez. >> so i am not certainly remove the linens and sell as condos people will be evicted or i would want to discuss with the city attorney's office and with the counties surveyor what the process for having them maps i mean, if you have - i think the process would be they file a new map and map the spaces which would be- >> it is simple they have to complete the original floor plans from the condos. >> they need to remap the

building. >> as you were giving me any education thank you very much the remaining of a building that has been converted into an apartment building the configurations have changed one hell of a steep road. >> if that was built as a you know thirty units apartment building and not condo it they can't do that but what we have a building units were technically commercial not residential so the same rules don't quite apply not built an, an apartments building but trying to legalize but have a discussion with the city attorney's office and the surveyor about what the process would be my assumption since the commercial those are are

commercial condos they'll have to be remapped and adding new residential condos i don't know if the project sponsor has investigated this at all but i want a conversation with the city attorney's office. >> is seems to me i'm using common sense which is dangerous but if the project sponsor want to go condo to it would be easy because you have free up a lot of the residents brick e bring that back to its original configuration i'll ask myself they'll not be going drove the process clearly not in their purview and then you said to me it is much more difficult to remap something or get an apartment building that was

never mapped for condos mapped it seems that this building as currently was reconfigured with the approval of a variance those were solid and legal reconfiguration that is he very difficult to get that remaps in a condo structure. >> sorry maybe i wasn't clear the issue under the law that you have a third unit apartment building without a condo you can convert that but that is not a thirty unit apartment it is technically a commercial building that rule didn't apply so not as if they're trying to convert both a condominium a residential building this is not technically a residential building so i said want to have a conversation again with the city attorney's office and .

>> so the rules are defendant for . >> residential verse commercial. >> you could take any commercial building the travns american pyramid and convert that no restriction on that but from the residential condos you change the structure they're all basically single-family dwellings and subject to rent control when you do residential that is good, good question. >> lemon back up a little bit i concur with my fellow commission with the planning department to investigate further. >> i will agree commissioner fung. >> a reminder those are variances we're looking at the question do they meet the finding required under the code.

>> the va know we don't recycle those wifi i will move to deny the appeal on the basis that the 5 findings have been met respect to the variance request. >> in both cases. >> that means we're uphold the variance. >> thank you commissioner fung to deny both appeals and uphold the variance on the basis they meet the side requirements under the section. >> commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner swig thank you that motion carries the variance are uphold item 11 was continued by the boards earlier we'll move on to

item 12 france are is department of building inspection on ashbury street protesting an alteration permit. >> we'll need a quick break. >> that's great i'm in the middle of that thank you. >> this is to rise the building application to complete redesign of shoring and delete thebreak. >> welcome back to the wednesday, november 4, 2015, of the san francisco general hospital we have calls item 12 and now bin to hear it starting with the appellant mr. ryan you have 7 minutes.

>> it is microphone france ryan appellant. >> can i have the overhead so first of all, we'll not here this matter of lawsuit this the developer has put up against myself and my wife i'm brought to your attention because more of or than a decade he was making issues about unauthorized construction keep in mind unauthorized construction has we go through any appeal that is completely resigned as we already discussions as mentioned already i'll saying it is inpredicament to be an over-the-counter permits now

there is something unusual about this development and that is it is no a zero lot line and my concern one of my concern is that the developer has made free with that space in here and this is actually directly from his survey as you can see the propelling is here not directly in line with my property that he rear of this garage what that means here it mark here it doesn't seem last week, a large distance but crucial the foundation of my garage on the left here we see where the developers workers have started to where their line and survey mark is a yellow string two

yellow strings we we compare the yellow strings with the metal marks here and here it is roughly in line here with the survey marks i happen to be under when the contractor made the march in a little bit if my garage and in this particular per i'm showing you the contractor has drilled in beyond what is up against my garage i remind you the concern that the developer showed in his lawsuit and here completely and during the mark this orange line is his mark and not my mark his mark so this was actually, i put in a complaint it has been

referred to a civil matter for litigation i believe that beyond looking at the civil case the litigation or separate litigation i've not wrought against the developer that the developer should not be allowed to do that and reflected in the permit it's the permit deals with the infrastructure felt extremely large 5 story building should reflect concerns concerns for the adjacent property and once again neshl the contractor had marked inside the lighting on that wooden post and beside the yellow property line marks and initially but later they cut to the ends of the garage line putting my garage at risk there is no reference of a subject permit to this and a bs

m permit for encroachment onto the sidewalk for this project no reference on the school district permit riders permission i was never consulted or explained now you can have a look at that that as excavation this white structure is my garage and sitting on the foundation roughly here and been done the board has seen a number of cases whether there is dangdz done to adjacent prosper where it is extremely excavation i think the board is familiar no notification no buy in no structure confirm no discussion with the architect or consultant

they went ahead and the that beyond the property line a lagging series those poles represent he's april but beyond a league of women against the side of my building again with no reference whatsoever it should the permit should reflect this about that sort of work and over here i'm showing to reinforce my plains and damage has already occurred so the foundation here is an steering wheel long distance to the ground and here it the damage that certainly was not there before so i'm showing again, as the little closer photograph with the structure beyond the property line the permit should

be revised to include whatever he is doing and having it approved separately again here is this is not my mark and the result of complaints now a complaints against my property for work done i never side against me and what can i do about that we've seen is developer mass a lawsuit against me for stuff like this it is a complex design as you can see interest is a lot of stuff here there's oath complainant so in conclude i'm assessing over-the-counter is not adequate permits for the encroachment issues there should be earthquake protection and land approval there should be a letter of approval i should

quality of life permission those are my issues and the reason i'm saying this permit should not be allowed to move forward at least if this situation thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners i don't have have a lot to add to this six or seven hearing prior but the issues he's raising are untrue/false noted fondling on truth over-the-counter review process was thorough as you may know the staff at dbi is quality to review the construction and they

did do just that the permit was issued properly i've had my surveyor verify that was not over the property line as far as i know not a structural engineer and therefore not qualified to comment on the bracing and shoring and sound like and bound issues for that matter it is unfortunate i think he is appealing that the photos are misleads he's showing property line offsets that's how the construction they don't put the string on the property line that is a intents to mislead you i corrected over the april, in fact, i didn't and let my survey oversees verify that i went

though the process of hiring and using licensed professionals to comment on those matters i don't know if there is much more to add the over-the-counter is it is what it is no reference to the permit being issued and like i said, the work was done by licensed professionals and contractors and designed by licenses structural engineers and approved by dbi staff in addition to that, the appellant is i think files three or four compliments complaints with dbi each other the inspector they coyote to the property and inspector it and dismiss the claim their urban fount and not factual that's it i'll be happy to

answer any questions. >> i've got one you've mentioned you've been here. >> 6 times. >> i've been here most of time this time without disclosure since no attorneys the question knowing that the issues you guys are shared in the past did you have any of those companies certified companies but parking garages on his foundation to determine before and after. >> i do yeah. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung there's been no movement. >> no movement. >> as a result of excavation thank you. >> we'll hear if inspector duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit application is a

restriction to a 2014 permit and it says complete the shoring delete the retaining walls so obviously as you may know the revisions are changes that are discovered during construction and come up on the foundation or is rooftop or the permit applicant will document that changes those were submitted in may of 2015 and it was issued on the 25th of the september that was over-the-counter review that means we don't have the opportunity plans and the application we don't take them in you come into to the building inspection and go to the fifth floor and take them home and

bring them to your engineer between may and september this permit was filed and issued i see that it was reviewed by our engineer, however, on the tenth of july matthew looked at that a dbi plan checker and you know there was go discussion by the both people on the over-the-counter process we tried to do as much over-the-counter and review because we take stuff in especially, when a project is underway i don't see anything wrong with over-the-counter i have confidence in the engineer look at the plans in the brief they look like from an inspectors point of view the shoring design part of the building designed by an engineer and a special 1950 for reports,

etc. we're keeping keep our eye other than it some complaints files over the last few months with delays we got a complaints think may 2015 and the neighbors concerned about the excavation done under the 2014 report a revision was filed and the neighbor was notified by dbi we did go out there on the 22 of may and did ask the contractor to provide a copy of the start order notice by the neighbor that was required before i excavation and a notice was to be present i notice the report was filed and work is according to the approved plans for the senior citizen better known new

i assume from the notes that that was met and there was a notification to mr. ryan way back up on the start of the excavation i believe from my memory i have a little bit of history so if that hadn't have been we wasn't would have - maybe the permit holder could address that we received recent complaints drilling beyond the survey line and our building inspector mr. schroeder referred to that is civil matter a building inspector will see that we're not licenses surveys oversees we don't get both that

if mr. ryan provide the surveyor to us there was conflict we may tell them to stop until it gets sort ofed out but a civil matter so i don't know if we got issues with the survey. >> at this point we did get a recent complaints on the 22nd of october 2015nd of october 20153nd of october 2015rnd of october 2015d of october 2015 they were working the work continued when the permit was suspend and it was in conflict and the case got closed i don't have any more to address i'm available to answer any

questions. >> i was curious because we didn't see a lot of the things he provided information in terms of i've never heard of a shoring design just over-the-counter without previous meetings and reviews and discussion. >> sorry commissioner fung. >> you indicated the shoring permit. >> uh-huh. >> was reviewed between may and september several times. >> it may have been in the writing for the permit is shows that of filed in may and issued in september and the actions from the dbi engineer was from july 2015. >> which indicates some type of a review meeting. >> oh, yes definitely reviewed but don't know how much time

they had a building permit i believe the original permit i think that was in the system that was built both the foundation of building sometimes that what we say retaining walls to bolster the fountains so but obviously someone was discovered during that face of construction that led to that they revised that and like it is didn't happen on all the projects but sometimes i think dbi overall ouriers we rely on the engineers as well and their design obviously that has to meet codes and stuff like this there is eloquent details i'm not concerned and a lot of shoring in san francisco on most

construction their deep if you look at behind the fenced you'll be shocked as an inspector i would be interested every time i see what their showing and shoring is a big part of san francisco because of to that grateful and the lot lines. >> moscone and transbay center. >> of course >> i believe the implication i interpreted it the same i appreciate the details as explained in the brief it implied over the over-the-counter and your over-the-counter was a little bit more nonprofit i appreciate over clarifying there was review discussion and review and discussions and other considerations before the permit

was offered that is very important. >> the plan checkers have a i think scoring 90 minute plan for the shoring but a time limit so someone can't take up a whole day and get 90 minutes of the engineers time you can come back and that's not noted not review but the gentleman from building that looked it is an engineer so over-the-counter is reviewed by the dbi engineers. >> no public comment here so i will move into rebuttal, sir. >> well, of course, i don't disagree with the over-the-counter process by my

issue there is damage being done it is clear from the photos i'm not is disagreeing with the developers property line marks they are less than a foot but i'm saying ease gone beyond them and there are claims outstanding and, yes off in different directs but complaints sitting there i can't close them it's not work i say so i'm saying we need to do something and not go forward like this i personally the developer comes up here and assures the data is good where's the data no shift in movement where is the data not pub available transparency i should be able to get it all the joining neighbors should be allowed to see the data how is

the data constructed and where is it under the circumstances of litigation the developer here must be suspect i honestly does not want to take his word and the actual shoring extraordinarily you're aware of situations the developer poushz on you see the picture it maybe all well fine and good i'm extraordinarily skeptical i don't believe that it is acceptable fill this probation officer move forward at this time especially given the circumstances the developers willing to dismiss any correct statements out of hand and saying their untrue it is clear from the

marks and that they're absolutely has been encroachment absolutely to question dbi didn't want to get if from a foot that's fine but clear in the pictures they've gone beyond and have built across the property line in all the course of fence we'll happy he did shoring but in particular sycamores e set of circumstances given the litigation and the fact that i don't believe the guy a trust worthy i don't believe that the preempt should move forward as is hard facts are necessary and data is necessary movement need to be the data needs to be available for all the neighbors and neighborhoods this needs a much deeper harder look you used a surveyor.

>> i'm accepting the survey they did themselves. >> your contesting where the lines are. >> in the only disagreement is dbi didn't go farther than a foot i'm dangerously with his survey i'm accepting his survey as filed yes. any other questions? >> thank you we'll hear. >> i have a question for you. >> since our surveyor took the information have you shared our information with the jane neighbor. >> it is private information free to hire a surveyor i do it

for any own person use. >> okay. that's been if that is what happens when it goes to this level it would be easier. >> that wouldn't make a difference i don't think it will make a difference thank you. >> just you putting it out there. >> mr. duffy anything. >> don't have much to add with mr. ryan i think he misunderstood i didn't say- if there is something obvious we don't need the survey we'll see someone encroaching someone built a deck into someone's yards it is objective we'll take action what we ask a surveyor from both sides with that and any dispute with the survey

we'll maybe talk to both sides and it is not that anything under a foot is not an issue but ask for a surveyor i've got an inspector it is not something we'll get into we'll ask mr. ryan or anyone else to provide us with their survey mr. sanchez noticed there in the drawings that was different provisions on the plans for plan checker comments over-the-counter review did take even though over-the-counter took a couple of months at the had at the came in so the dates on the plans do reflect that there was some comments some in july and eventually the approval. >> okay. >> mr. duffy any open complaints on that permit. >> i see one of them complaint

going back to inspector kurian he asked for some stuff and left the complaint over but the most recent exclaims with closed about 5 maybe 4 closes something like that. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> yes mr. duffy. >> sorry commissioners, i should add he has a violation for a notice of violation for a desk constructed without a permit he has been through that issue with his proposed and obviously a lot of this because of those two people not. >> not getting long along and i worry about it would be

resolved i know that dbis time is being used we're here for that but to the point we've been here allotments and back on the deck when mr. ryan gets his permit i hope not this is what the litigation is about as well. >> thank you. >> commission when i read the brief on the appeal that was difficult to understand most of points he's raising so at this point i don't find to be able to effect any action on the permit therefore i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> more am i. >> i agree and furthermore, we deal with that that on a regular basis in this case the neighbors

are drawing i wish i had a magic wand to make that go away those permits were issued correctly. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was correct. >> thank you commissioner fung to upholds the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner swig that motion carries commissioners the last item on the calendars item thirteen is the action and possible discussion of annual report this this is for july 1st, 2014, to june 2015 and we've called that

fiscal year 2015 all braids and commissions are required to adapt this and this document is to safer that charter requirement an overview thought accomplishments of the board and something we postoperative the website so the public seize what you've accomplished in a year so i'd like to give you a brief overview of the report if you take a few moments ago and ask you to consider adopting it you held thirty mergers for over one and 6 hours at those mergers one and 62 matters 1 hundred plus appeals and hearing questions and jurisdiction the appeals was down 21 percent from the prior year the prior year was unusual because of the number of at&t

cases we've heard if look at the parts several years the appeal line was higher than 2008 we took a minute to look at the current year to date numbers until last week we were actually running low 33 appeals in the first quarter but last week, we have 35 files in one day and. >> the appeal was to do with - the denial of sign permits that will be coming your way in january we've doubled our appeal hearing in a matter of a few hours. >> the sign permits is the next phase it seems to me on page 5 a map of the city as you can see where the properties are that were the subject of the appeals this map a similar to shown in the past years there

are appeals across the city but. >> there's a contemplation but otherwise there is started throughout the city the report talks about the orientation nation of the appeals the departments generate the appeals specifically and is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak this year that was dominate by the dir that was 2/3rd's of the matters we heard last year yeah. >> (laughter). >> actually 34 percent from the planning department decision and the next biggest was from public works decisions which recommended a quarter of case at&t. >> some at&t case just half of those were - >> we'll have a lot with van

ness corridor coming up as well. >> on page 6 is distribution and more detail in the appendix and a charts one of of that shows a distribution over the parts 5 years the under the influence of the appeals coming from dbi and planning and the debut also see how they fluctuate from year to year and is big spike in the case the new permit legislation or business interferences we'll see with the 35 sign appeals reflects not only the permit legislation but also the result of litigation so stay tuned for january. >> nice nice. >> the reports talks about how you decided those cases 58

percent percent of the matters you denied the appeal and the underlying department intact 38 percent grants the appeal and overturned the department 14 percent of the times or modify the determination 34 percent of the time if you look at the outcome by departments you can see it is spread out evenly not like you have one particular department or the type of decisions our denials and appeals pretty much across the board. >> pretty mean to everybody. >> and pretty generous. >> you can look at a graph over time and see how this year, the boards denied more appeals than in the past years i tried to figure out if there was tied to a trends whatever came before

you exactly. >> really wow. >> as far as the rehearing jurisdiction the number of those matters were very typical nothing unusual and the 21 we're rehearing requests one grants and two-year were denied and this is similar to how you looked things in the past looking at the budget thanks to the strong economy and mindful spending the board had a driver's license revenue it steetdz the projects and the expenditure under project we end with a surplus of over hundred and 32 thousands totally one hundred and 44 thousands the salvation was up we bends in our

surcharge revenue and while appeal volume was thoot as high in the prior year still higher we came in 15 percent of both the projects in both those revenue streams those increases have been helpful because even though our expenses may go up we vice president had to change the surcharge to increase the revenue this is again on the expenditure side we came in 8 percent blow the budgets of $75,000 in savings that has to do with in part with salary savings because of the staff vacancies and eliminating the city attorney and also from sales tax and the underlying expenses on page eleven a pie shatters or chart shows how the

evaluate majority is fringe benefits we do pay 18 percent of our budget for the service of others departments and the two infrastructure are rents and phones and 3 percent for 0 the services we eye companies outside the that provides the address or the interpreter we had this evening and 2 percent for board dinners someone want know post itself is important for other types of materials. >> a quick question spending other departments was due to other with the city attorney services what exactly effects that i mean, we have city attorney bryan during the

meetings but representing the court what effects those hours. >> we don't pay the city attorney fees for litigation only the advice it is only the advice provided for us at the meeting and the city attorney's preparation for the meanwhile and offline any advice like conflict and ethics advise and advise i ask for when issues come up that needs additional attention. >> we're not calling them. >> part of that he's doing this for several years and can answer questions after. >> i've been doing the for several years so you don't have the same questions when you first started. >> perhaps less controversial so requiring more efforts on their part and new permit issues

to call in the attorneys for additional advise so the 200 and thirty thousand surplus went into our rainy day fund that is something in the future years if we have a revenue deficit and given the fact our revenues are past it we don't control building permit applications or file appeals in the office it great to have it in a lien year. >> what was the last times a deficit was 09 a yeah actually a chart think page 11 as you can see year-end balances 2009 was the recent year we didn't make enough money to cover over expenses. >> he expect that happens in

2001 or 2 as well. >> and 89 through 96. >> we actually learned we are slated to be part of a new 2 year fixed budget cycle the mayor introduced legislation to move more departments into that two year cycle he rolled this out 4 years ago and some of the departments are on it and more departments moving into that direction we'll be coming to you less often every others year with a budget proposal that will be a 2 year fixed term and if someone comes up in the off year an adjustment typically for us neighbor negotiation that changes our fringe benefit rates

they effect the city stuff like this so the goal to free up more time form less time spent on budget approval and more time spent on long-term planning for all of the city's departments. >> assuming that every director is as efficient as you are. >> wow. >> (laughter). the report talks about our performance measures each department look at how typically we decide case and releases the decision we had a goal of restraining order percent for the site cases we met and the goal for realizing the decision that was 97 but we met 94 percent the reason we had cases of two appeals of the same decision and with an has a

rehearing and one didn't we hold off on releasing the decision we want to make sure the decision is for the both appeals 6 instances we had to come back and explicit meet your timeframe for realizing the decisions at the end of the report we had staff changes and mr. pacheco left we were lucky to hireer our gentleman and a; correct left i used the opportunity with that vacant to change the classification from a general clerk position to one that is important specified in the legal fields we're having a better exercise on staff i didn't want to evict someone

from their position but we have our legal assistant fully staffed at the september he feel and hope the new staff feels that people are starting to come together as as team certainly i'm impressed how folks are moving through this process we'll getting there >> the staff work hard on upgrading some of the facet of our website to redesign and make that more users friendly having all the decisions to 1992 posted on the website and upgraded the computer equipment for everyone in the office we're up to date and we'll be out-of-date in a few months that's it the

appendices to get information about filing for the jurisdiction and appeals details and details on the litigation the board has faced. >> if you have any questions, i'll be a happy to give them a go. >> to that these on the bottom of page 20 the market street the april decision. >> okay. that would be wrong. >> we're heads of our time. >> yes. >> that was it. >> i have one point on the description of appeals of the department of building inspection i did would be appropriated to highlight how many tenants in-law unit. >> for this year or going

forward. >> it is probably i would guess a significance percentage not a youth authorities. >> because of the legislation if 2014 as well. >> yeah. i think it should be highlighted there. >> okay absolutely. >> i want to commends our director an excellent job. >> yes. >> very informative and i'm taking mine with me. >> i rail take anything. >> aren't we the smallest department in the city and another department about our size not smaller than. >> a motion to adopt the annual report. >> so moved. >> okay. on that motion then per diem. >> okay. no public comment.

>> commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig thank you commissioner president lazarus there's no further .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the

art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and

energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco november 4, 2015. i would like to remind members of the audience to please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during proceedings. commissioners, that will place us under general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> does any member of the public wish to make public comment on a non-agenda item? please come forward. seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> did you take attendance? >> i did not. let me take role. commissioner wolfram, commissioner