>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, december 9, 2015, of the san francisco board of appeals the peace officer that sxhaupdz and joined by how vice president commissioner honda's and commissioner fung and

commissioner swig commissioner wilson will be absent this evening to my left is robert bryan the city attorney with legal advice and i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we will also be joined by we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. an easter person and anticipating joe duffy rincon point the department of building inspection and scott sanchez representing the planning department and planning commission and from the tragically and rebecca the deputy director and commission barbara

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. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking please stand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you very much commissioner president lazarus commissioners one housekeeping having to do with item 8

regarding an alteration permit the parties ask that will reschedule to january 2016 and need a motion in order to move that it. >> so moved. >> thank you any public comment moving item number 8 seeing none, we have a motion to move this to january 27th. >> commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda's and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries we'll move to item that general public comment please silence all electronic devices. any general public comment tonight. >> seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners? >> okay. seeing none we'll move to item 3 the boards

consideration of the minutes of the board meeting from november 18th. >> additions, deletions, or changes to the minutes may i have a motion to approve. >> thank you any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, we have a motion to adopt commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig okay that motion carries thank you very much we will move to item number 4 which is the jurisdiction request the subject property 4400 pacheco street the requester asking they take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on august 2015 by the department of building inspection the

jurisdiction request was filed on november 6, 2015, did permit holder is gavin and it compiles with the first floor at three bedrooms and second floor existing bath and three bedroom legalize one bath and add one bath and windows we'll start with the requester you have 3 minutes probation officer present to the board give it to the clerk and can we hold we need the building inspection to listen in on this. >> i saw him here. >> yeah. he was here. >> sir hold on one minute waiting for the inspector to

return. >> okay. >> go ahead. >> you can begin. >> okay. >> commissioners my name is steve we opposed the building next door to pa cherish since 1977 my son and brother-in-law lived there built by the same contractor about this same time last year the police department busted a house and confiscated 200 plants we were gastroglad to see it sold we saw a job card and assumed they were going to make improvements since it had on a grow house late in december

a wall was built between the living room and it wasn't exactly what we thought that was going to be and saw the plans and we realized the plans didn't match the condition on the plans we called the inspector and told no inspection were you made we saw the tenants moved into the building we filed the application to the jurisdiction of the legal notice that period has passed we filed it the building inspection inadvertently approved the plans and intended to do the work was misrepresented overhead please

in herons she speaks of the approval by the city departments the plans don't reflect the conditions as the building was sold each flat had one leadership and dining and assessed by two sets of stairs with a back wrongly staircase it was existing a wall between the living room and difrng nothing back stairway and a second bathroom didn't exist we believe that either the dining and the living room are notice both being used as dwelling units the added basket was previously occupied by the back staircase it had 8 bathrooms and the planner noted that was odd no number of bathrooms that what

about built in a building we believe that the misrepresentations were drawn to avoid a conditional review application and the notification required by the application the misrepresentation were drawn to say appearance of that real meeting sro or dormitory type of occupancy we building that the plans their intent was intentionally misrepresented and inadvertently approve the plans should have been a conditional use permit at the proper time thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> okay. >> so commissioners and mr. mcdoesn't we're here to answer

two questions. >> state your name. >> my name is eric lee here to represented my parents so the four issues raised number one in-laws are not shown other plan and number 2 the stairway that was removed removed and a bathroom was put in it's place the inspector went to the department of building inspection this was approved december 7th i brought 5 copies of these i don't know - >> wait thank you. >> all right. so all of these have been approved and we're in addition add a fire strictly system and number 3 bathrooms and now 11 bathrooms each

individual room is a rented out we rented 20/20 law-abiding students the minimum lease is one year a long-term renter and thai choose to share the bedrooms and anyone is currently sleeping in the living room after research that is perfectly legal at neighborhood notification maybe required for doing the work on our property we went to the san francisco planning department website there was some listed we didn't extend outd outside of our building and not roach more than 75 percent of the existing frame so really 240 reason we see that require a neighborhood notification i just want to emphasize my are

parents are good citizens and my dad worked every single day and didn't claim disability they have to buy this house and boric acid their bank account we do everything with the regulations and playing apply for multiple permits and going to multiple inspectors and through the proper channels late san francisco has shortages we know that people want to rent and we believe we've come applied with everything there is that's it. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members scott sanchez planning department the issue the jurisdiction permit for that

that was issued several, several years ago this week they did file and receive a new building permit application that rises this jurisdiction request and it is not all the points raised by the jurisdiction requester and the points were were raised by the gentrification requester were alarming that someone came in and not representing the conditions staff found that two staff members reviewed it last friday and felt comfortable approving the permit a couple of issues insuring two dwelling units they have open space part of that permit that was issued on monday has a rooftop open space with rear yard open space staff looked at the pocketed

this is group housing and would like more of an issue over the past each year not a clear line between the independence of dwelling units and open spaces this was come filed with our planning code revisions there was questions about the family room and leadership and the appearance they were sleeping rooms staff had the project manager remove the doors from the plan before approving it so again, this is a jurisdiction request the permit i'm speaking of is a permit issued on monday that has a 15 day appeal the neighborhood can appeal that to the board of appeals if they have questions and advise them to speak with the permit holder and come to an understanding

about had a the permit does we think that permit that was issued on monday addresses the concerns that is the subject of this jurisdiction request but beyond that i'm not necessarily opposed and requiring the requester that the only thing matters it the permit that was issued on monday with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> this was no a cu. >> no keeping it as a dwelling unit is permitted to group housing that is a condition and conditional review. >> a separate portion the code relating to student housing. >> that is related to starbuck's u student housing it is a use that is operated with a specific institution just the fact that students live in the

building is not student housing it means they're a group of san francisco state university students that are living there that would be operated by san francisco state university or other institution to our code. >> another piece i can't remember somewhere a single-family can rent a room to a student isn't there something in there. >> i would double check our code i can't say anything to prohibit someone that operating or you know renting out to a student or you know. >> so the original as built didn't reflect the current work. >> that was the obligation of the jurisdiction requester i didn't see a clear are you able to that so i'm assuming that was the case and that the revision

permit documenting the existing conditions it benefits the jurisdiction requester to see the new revision plans that are here. >> the other question excuse me. is that that is a single-family dwelling unit 11 bedrooms. >> under the building change for that. >> no, i mean under the planning code there is no limit on the number of bedrooms more or less a building permit issue for the sleeping rooms but under the planning code nothing that prohibits that yeah again, the definition within group housing and dwelling unit are not maybe clean-cut as you one likes but we would review any complaints and make a determination to see how to functions and operates

whether or not the group housing has somewhat people come in and laugh fully get a permit and it is consistent with group housing this is something we have a purr enforcement on you i imagine the services on building you're only allowed a certain amount of garbage and 15 people living in a property that will steady the services. >> that is about the number of people people have large families and can have larger groups of individuals and that is the information we need. >> okay. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit under request as you can see is to

comply with the complaint first floor add 3 bedrooms additional 3 bull u full baths and third story remodel the existing bath and legalize one bath and add windows at the site i check the the writing is on the wall on the permit and appears to be okay. except an actual complaint that should have been reviewed it looks like our last entry on the complaint was by inspector miami left a note to contact us on the 7 of october we we received the complaint and we left it note to schedule for the complaint investigation no entry on the 7 of october no plans at the job site the

contractors will schedule an investigation i heard a permit issued on monday according the permit but it is interesting to see two permit that comply with the complaint when you have an actual complaint you write it up we want to know what it is you're doing and getting another permit without us getting in there we need to get into the this i don't see that happened in the writing we can look at that from our end because the complaint is an actual complaint there is an allegation of existing conditions in the shown correctly some other case that was before the board the conditions unless you've got

approved plan somewhere it is hard to know what they had we realize on city's records in this case city assessors was shown that building as coming up as two units and two stories, 8 rooms with 3 baths with a square footage of 23 hundreds square feet maybe that's the existing conditions for someone to draw the plans before they start verse what they want this is something the architect we assume will do correctly unless previous plans it is hard to verify what the comprehensive conditions actually were let's see another permit this year i for one bedroom remelted

structure i'm not sure which thorough but one of the baths is referenced we have inspection on the permit we have the cover and see inspector cone we're moving along with the project i'm available to answer any questions. >> with that particular case really related not necessarily to the complaint or the subsequent permit but relates to whether the preemptive that was issued by your department was appropriately issued right. >> the first time. >> it didn't get through the third floor if you've got on actually complaint it needs to go through the third floor it doesn't say that on the writing

sometimes, it is on the building permit application i don't know if it is on the building permit not shown on the writing but a process for at floor because of the complaint that was filed. >> what was the date of original permit you're complaint occurred in october. >> will they put down a 13 complaint. >> in 2013. >> that was for a plumbing issue that did go through plumbing division so maybe it's a okay. on that end. >> a couple of questions so the notice of violation was issued there's been no access by the department. >> we didn't look at the complaint. >> we could have done that they need to get a you - this

straightened out maybe even though inspector doesn't realize there was an actual complaint. >> the other thing although the records don't reflect the property was sold in the brief it noted there was pictures of the unit for sale maybe that would be that would be helpful that is active. >> that's the only part of investigation anything we can use to look at the existing conditions from the person is alleging that so that's what it is so inside the property as well we're seeing a lot of this people are adding bedrooms if this market the shortage of hard for people in so many cases make a dining and moved it into the living room and converted it. >> the plans need to be

accurate. >> we expect the excited conditions to be accurate that is what the architect should show i'm not sure the plumbing division it was a plumbing complaint maybe that's fine weld need to follow up with the october complaint with the department of building inspection to make sure that everything is above board and the other thing on the fees to mention it is something that the applicant i want to read from the puc charges on 6 hundred plus their adrc 3 bathrooms i thought that was something remiss but you know when our adding extra usage of water. >> mr. duffy educate me on a

light prior safety this is a house 20022 square feet to a bunch of bedrooms with the population of the housing is growing had i hear that a stairway stairway has been disabled or done away with that is a assess point how is a change so drastic as this held account for life safety. >> that's a good question in a single-family not as much a 3 unit more of an issue that will not change the existing believe it or not because of a single-family dwelling a 3 occupancy. >> so will this multiple bedrooms being added obviously i'll go for the assumption those

bedrooms will be occupied and it leads someone to building that the occupancy by 1 or 2 it's a significant occupancy and like our safety risk. >> the way the code addresses that in the bedrooms they have to have the egging regress windows every bedroom and there is supposed to be proper existing and wouldn't increase the number of exits in the building i definitely don't think this is the case but in the rear yard you can exit into the rear yard that is allowed not to make it to the public way that is okay. i imagine just from the one what type of building any bedrooms have to have egress window.

>> thank you any public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> anyway we've heard most of the case but the question has to satisfied the criteria to take jurisdiction which is whether the city erred in the appellant not being able to file on time i don't see that happening here he has an opportunity to file an appeal in a timely manner. >> yeah. i think the recognize by there was a job notice in a window there was recognition and unfortunately probable an assumption lack of follow-up and the assumption that that what

terms a normal renovation and low and behold surprise, surprise given the opportunity to appeal there is the only way. >> after giving the economics i'm surprised this hadn't happened more i'll move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis the city didn't error and the notice to the requester. >> okay. on that motion by commissioner fung to deny the request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda. >> no and commissioner swig that that motion carries with a vote of 3 to one one absent okay moving to item number 5 appeal mann well verse the arts

commission appealing the non-restricted renewal of a street artist certificate with the certificate listed and is mr. low here or someone here to represent him? >> okay no one is here commissioners to represent the appellant so we'll hear from the arts commission if you like okay. >> did he provide any case. >> he indicated he might not come and said he was thinking of sending someone on his behalf but it appears none - >> i don't think that he asked you to appear on his behalf you can speak under general public comment. >> go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners my name is residential housing by a the deputy director of the arts commission and charged with

the street artist program that was legislated in the police code and required artist sal only what they're able to show what they make and the program is scared out by members of our advisory committee and craft that are memorial appointees here to answer the questions if necessary and the decision to revoke and not to renew made by the arts commission after the hearing that staff provided the evidence and commission barbara this evening the chair of the street art committee to provide on explanation for the commission decision i'll introduce her now. >> so i've been introduced i'm

bearing beret i chair the art committee and has under four mayors i've watched people come and go and at our september 16th meeting we stated had testimony and heard from several advisory committee members they select the art and make sure they meet with each artists of they go to their studio to make a contract after the testimony and after extensive deliberate discussions the street artists denied the license and very clear that he had been warned he had been explained and helped to understand and sold items

emulsified by other we worked with him and sent him back he's been to the process and know what is going on we're not saying he was not informed and that way we really building he broke you're trust and our trust and the laws of city of san francisco the 3 artist owners says you must make their object and prove you've done so he knew that several years ago he is continued to sell objects made by other people and our task a difficult to keep the balance between supporting the artists making sure that we insure the artists create their object and meeting their

obligation to the community of san francisco to support artist we understand the obligation to the consumers about tourists and locals buy from the streetcar artist and lead to building that those are artist made objects if their emulsified we're not honest and people we have been - we support them but if we're letting the art degrade that reflects poorly on the other artists the mayor and the board of supervisors are let down if we're not following their intent of the law and the cultural and artist center people come to visit and lastly the merchants

we're not fair to the merchant if we're selling merchandise they can sell the merchant are kind to us and you know maybe crowds maybe they've been very nice to us we don't want to have our street artists selling things so, please understand we're not here to divert them but only to support a quality street artist programs many fine artists in san francisco, california be proud of and selling a non-quality product is in no one's interest. >> there's a question from a commissioner fung. >> one of the other letters that was sent in.

>> i'm sorry. >> one of the other letters that was sent in talked about this not this case but the fact that enforcement was not so much by the your staff or the department staff but more by other artists providing information on these who are not conforming; is that correct. >> i have to defer to staff i wouldn't know. >> howard streetcar artist program there's one individual that gives and supplies information, however, staff had been monitoring the gentleman all along the brief we sent you is and i bunt with photographs as well as our own notebooks and monitoring and so on it was not

a result of an outside sider but our own enforcement. >> okay. >> thank you we can take public comment now. >> two minutes. >> okay commissioners hold on one second the president wants to limit 2 minutes is that because of the length of the calendar this evening okay. >> commissioners, i was the one that wrote the letter i stand by it no enforcement on the streets the original complaint against mr. low came from the shopping mall someone that was no longer there and multiple complaints from stores to the art commission that went unanswered i have this on file i know that

very well, the advisory committee comes out once a year don't monitor that corridor i speak from personal experience i was next to go mr. low for years it was not staff a personal issue the gentleman has with mr. although, the way he was with me that's all there is to it i'm sorry mr. low is not here to speak up for himself i didn't have a fair hearing and lower level i made efforts to talk with him and workout things it is been very, very difficult - he's not by no means a single offender in a recent study by kate foul two studies the second one the feasibility study she as

an independent person remarked that 40 percent of this program is good and if also this appeal process is a way to bring back events with 8 and 10 years ago is a mistake. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none we'll take rebuttal again anyone representing the gentleman if not is there anything else the arts commission time to add you have 3 minutes. >> hi my name is renée an advisory committee member and i go out on weekends or during the week along with any colleagues to monitor and see what the street artists are doing once in a while an artist is speaking

being commissioners we're skip their booth maybe this was mentioned we're out there often and i myself have seen mr. low products that should not be on his display we've written him up nothing new my colleagues all noticed that i'm here to testify we've seen it ourselves so thank you. >> i've got a questions are you finished? >> where what is our response to the fact the public mentions that 40 percent of the booths are supplying articles not made specifically by themselves. >> we take great care in screening everything and make studio visits and discuss it amongst ourselves we're artists and craft people we have a lot

of experience making and easy materials we have various criteria that each artist has to follow if they're using materials that are manufactured they have to alter them now things can be argued when they are and bringing this to our attention we'll do a studio visit to make sure that the artists is making the items and so i could disagree that 40 percent of the items are not made by the artists but i can see not trying to august that way. >> the next question how many of the artists have fallen under disciplinary problems or citations for not supplying their own work. >> very this i'm trying to think of very this

may be one percent that's my guess very small. >> excuse me. one last question more curiosity on my part in the departments brief it talks about a number of products which i guess the connotation their manufactured by someone else you use the term canada i can't think why did that make that automatically manufactured by the companies. >> that is not pertaining to the country but to the style of the pipe canadian pipe is a kind it was smoked with a straight bowl i don't know how to describe it then by shape. >> okay. that was a different

generation. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> that is kind of a tough job you know but i guess the issue when i saw the big lighters in the pictures it tlemsz that not every product is made but obviously that is either 100 percent or nothing i have no choice but to support the non-restricted renewal of the permit. >> i agree unfortunately, the permit holders didn't come and defend his behavior so the statements are what we have to hear. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal. >> and commissioner fung is

that on the basis that you didn't find that the appellant has been selling products not manufactured by himself a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the appellant has been selling items not manufactured by himself commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries we will move on to item 67 appeal that an erratic interests verse the department of building inspection department of urban forestry protesting a tree removal the denial to not plant the box replacement trees at the subject property application and

the hearing on this was held on october 16th and continued to allow time for the parties to discuss resolution and the mapping person to appear before the board with americans with disabilities act perhaps we'll hear from the department of urban forestry and the mapping and from the appellant 3 minutes for each side okay starting then 10 with mr. buck. >> we missed you at the last hearing mr. buck. >> good evening commissioner honda i'm here to apologize had to not - i want to apologize no

disrespect. >> you're working on replacing trees. >> i appreciate that i respect the decision you made last month to catch up since we last met urban forestry met with the applicant the appellant on site to be look at is there truly room to plant the 60 box trees to remove the larger trees there are a couple of things the utility line we knew about on the mission street instead of 66 from the because of the curve we if you do it the overhead distance is 4 feet plus not room to plant 6 inch box trees along the mission street fromg and the

utilities currently exits on the 9th street footage of the property it came to light this is the comcast line inside of the sidewalk that is a bit of a conflict to the existing trees we're willing to allow a variance, if you will, to allow those trees to remain but not conflict to allow the 60 foot box trees on the 9th street we met onsite and take into account at utility and provided those plans two other issues i just wanted to brought to your attention out of relating blue we were contacted by the sfmta a few weeks ago about the issue on ninth street and a bulb out to mission street on the far right in this image and mta believes

that is blocking the viability to this traffic signal and our internal guidelines we have with the sfmta there's 0 total of 3 traffic signals two are visible their recommendations to have us require the applicant to move that tree out of the bulb out into the regular sidewalk to match the pattern established on this sidewalk to increase the viability of the traffic signal the last item on ninth at our hearing in october public comment from the neighbor that is complaining of a leak a suitcase basement we've allowed the applicant to remorseful the tree the final step for the applicant to increase the space between the two trees in the

admitted middle of ninth but the bureau of urban forestry due to the presence the utility lines on the frontages we prefer the focus at this point be we work with the appellant to get the two tree locations adjusted and open to the boards ultimate recommendations for the 60 inch that requires alternating the existing utility or coming up with some sort of financial penalty with had with it the the differences between the 36 and the 60 inch box trees required separately there is an ada issue that was raised i thought at the hearing it was largely a misunderstanding before the tree planting guidelines i don't

believe there is an issue with the currency strip but our colleague can speak to the ada that concludes our department's recommendation i'm concerned about making sure the saying that on 9th street is the best long-term at this point to require digging up everything and starting over i think that is going to be challenging. >> so. >> but you are requiring that the have two trees that are being moved to the planter location is going to require some removal of the sidewalk. >> that's true that's true i want to see some of the changes made in the meeting the applicant is open to those adjusts. >> plus one reduction.

>> the one reduction. >> are you finished commission the concern that you know they're allowed the building permit and agreed to the conditions and prior to us having the situation they electedism not to abide by the conditions they installed the larger trees and so the concern i have it will set a precedent you can come and roach the trees and say you're going to remove certain trees and not at the that's okay. what penalty phase have you come up with to try to river the situation that's an important point one that urban forestry over the last since carli short and i worked together 11 years we're not

instructs the jury rubber stamping that's an important thing and prior to that hearing to broker that all the time not you as a body pulled out of left fieldthanasia that's an important thing to consider and i think that really a question that i would put back to our commission and i believe what caused this they're not getting their final condition signed off on the permit that's why. >> correct we pulling the final job we've withhold signing to give us some authority to be able to uphold this is why we insisted it come back to the board. >> i have a question we hear.

>> i will ask my question. >> no. >> you can ask questions but that would be helpful to hear the entire presentation is that okay. >> that's okay. >> that's good. >> so hear from mr. jensen. >> good evening commission happy to speak to you on many matter the issues pertaining to the proper design of the sidewalk landscaping and street trees i'm here to clarify that specifically where individuals tree wells have put in secret h square feet and put at the parking space where the trees is not option where people are

getting in and out of vehicles no courtesy strip is required. >> i'm sorry can you bring the mike up color yeah sorry about that so the alternative using the sidewalk stripping the larger areas of sidewalk planting that requires courtesy strips that is two feet wide to get in and out of vehicles and the admitted middle of the assess space to get to that courtesy strip in looking at the google photos just on the site i see that the constructed parking lot is not on the plans i see a clear loading zone passerby curve and one the that

extend as the first parking space it is big the cad dense the spacing the street trees is predicated it is marked on mission street and the layout of landscaping space is invalid entirely need to be restudied i fully support putting in passerby loading zones but no - a direct access to a curve ramp a suggestion to the board the design the entire sidewalk be referred back to dpw and the plan department and the design team plus sfmta the curve

marking so that is properly coordinated. >> yeah. who wants to go first (laughter). >> talk about some talk about serial permit this is serial information. >> are you done. >> i'll take a stab on the air in the markings is that from the city department error or from the permit holder. >> the drawings are prepared by the permit applicant but i was looking photos. >> okay. >> batter up. >> do you want to hear from the appellant. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> appellant.

>> good evening can you hear me. >> yep. >> yep. >> as chris - >> pull it towards you. >> as chris buck outlined we've met own the site to exchange multiplied overwhelms i'm not here to august about the 60 inch we routed this thing wrong and should have come back to the board of appeals what happened in the plan checked comments it is you know in the midst of pulling 73 permits to do this building we couldn't planted the 60 inch we deferred to 89 empathy to plant the

better street plan and far exceeded that and in retrospect we should have come back to the board of appeals and got it cleared with the bureau of urban forestry that is not part of the check plans with the city for context i brought in the way it looks today i think that we can agree it doesn't does lay out with a better street plan this is the front on mission and in meeting with christi think the goal last time was continued for us to get together and come up with a solution for this thereafter substantially sfmta has voiced their opinion about another tree they want removed

in addition to the request we move the trees i'm here to apologize for not routing this back to the board of appeals but hoping to come to a conclusion on this no time and figure out a viable solution to move forward to get our certificate of occupancy one of the things we've talked about is we could you know answer the sfmta issues that are at hand and moving the corner tree and the tree we space out and not remove it but that's it. >> any questions. >> state your name for the record. >> zach shore. >> what is our response to that the drawings were inner correct and the tree replacement were incorrect per you're. >> i couldn't hear that to summarize what the ada in the

curve marking that. >> according to the plans that the trees are all in the wrong area meaning in their in the area where the loading zone or the doors open something like that. >> my answer would be we working closely with dpw on site they came out and actually if you go out there i know it all works because jaes can from dpw we worked with her on the stripping and the curve marking division with sfmta it all lines up we have the signatures on the job near that the ones dictating what dictated moving it mta wanted to shown to be two short on the plan set and so they came out and told us stepped it, it

is always the same amount of parking spaces the trees are in the required area and the two foot strip required. >> to put you on the spot what are you willing to offer to amend that. >> i personally will not agree to letting the trees go that there. >> i think what was mentioned last time there was a potential for an number two, fee of the delta so we required to plant 5, 60 inch box trees we planned 9 believe it or not it was - >> it looks nice. >> yeah. it does. >> i'm apologetic for not coming back the delta that was mentioned was 21 hundred per 4 trees that is a viable solution

to be paying that fee and/or moving the trees that sfmta has asked us to move and saying that the tree we're happy to do whatever chris says those were approved plans by dpw it is a way to go ahead and get a stamp and move them now we're willing to do it and apply that number two, fee that is viable. >> so is are you finished is that my recollection how this happened first place was not only you arbitrarily decided to move the tree but also as you recall you r7b89 to dpw and dpw said sure and, in fact, mr. bucks department was not included.

>> that's right you know the plan check comments they get very in depth and one thing that could happen with the city they get to chime in and unfortunately you know. >> part of it sorry was that they needed it for occupancy and not able to pour the concrete because of the tree sidewalk that came up in the previous hearing. >> my other recollection the reason you went to the 32 research the 60 that was discovery of utilities and things getting in the way and it wasn't realistic. >> yeah. author excuse me. can i finish i'm sorry. i'm slow you know old man's disease and

in fact, what was interesting tonight mr. buck there are utilities blocking the way, in fact, our correct in you're observation that you keep a look out put the book trees in i want to make sure that my recollections were. >> yeah. right the scope of work and the landscaper architect to get the 5, 60 inch box but limits in the utility mapping they changed the better streets plan we okayed it is and got it stamped unfortunately, we with didn't know to take it desperately to the b u f and the board of appeals we took it though the city we were wrong and we won't make that mistake again. >> i'm still confused i thought we heard prior to you're talking to mr. jensen an issue

with the red and yellow zone. >> you're saying there isn't. >> i'm saying we didn't exactly with sfmta and the department asked us to do the marking in caulk i wasn't clear i thought he was talking about the striping i know the story how it ended up i was there approving it all but certainly didn't do anything out the original or ordinary. >> it sounds like there maybe an issue. >> yeah. i'll i'll be happy to to resolve it again everything is copy seismic on the issue. >> what i heard and somebody can tell me i heard wrong what i heard was that the plans said

one thing and what is installed is another thing but what i'm also hearing you acknowledged that there was plans and dpw and mta came out and said well, you know in real life stuff happens and we're going to paint things 12 differently. >> yeah. i could do it over we did it per plan and mta that painted the curves and exceeded further and we asked why nothing aligned we painted it again per the mta and dpw request and got to signed off. >> i'm happy happy to figure out out. >> you were directed by city staff it is a paint that

regardless of plans. >> that's quite common in the field right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item. >> don't see any commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> unless you have other questions. >> we can bring mr. jensen back and hear exactly why he was shaking his head in the back. >> before you get going looking at the photos that were submitted in the brief you have a no parking white zone but have a tree in front of that is that part of it. >> the spacing the trees on the plans were coordinated with each parking space was shown on the plans the changes due to the

curve marking changes the landscaping and trees on the mission street it has to be revisited the entire thing. >> maybe mr. buck should come up as well. >> you know one thing just to be clear mr. jensen you're who. >> with the public works department and a licensed architect. >> everyone i had a question for mr. buck is that okay. >> chris so we want this to work for everyone as well but by the picture described here we have a yell or white zone a tree cut out there is that part of what you've been deciding with the

permit holder they'll have to relocation some stuff. >> commissioners that came up today between kevin and i my understanding of the white zone it is installed really and desire the pertaining to have passerby loading and drop off and have parking spaces regarding the spacing we like to deter to kevin jensen as a recommendation he's the ada saeshltd coordinator the guru on spaces not something that i observed as a conflict my sense the landscaping permit is something that someone is doing voluntarily a white sworn i'm not aware the landscaping should be instead of interest so the striping was not something that rose to my attendance so defer

to him his knowledge. >> eventually much more work on this project maybe continuing it is a good situation. >> yeah. one response to that would be again, a few options before you one requiring the 60 inch tree box and another to come up with some sort of penalty that is delta between what was to be planted i'm just learning is few things about the issue that kevin has brought to your attention one recommendation to allow 36 but all the spacing and other requirements be needed public works approval as a condition. >> we've gone through that and public works has chaumgd and worked it we still have an issue

letting the department in my opinion may not we may still want to handle i want to have a handle on that. >> sure i understand one condition we have a job design off one condition would be that the changes be made and meet with public works satisfaction ms. the first time that kevin jensen been here before you we defer whatever his recommendation to resolving it. >> why wouldn't his input would have been solicited sooner. >> that's a good question i don't know that all prongs go through him specifically some go through the street permit that's the permit that the applicant and appellant received through

public works that was the miscommunication on their part they never come to us for a sign off not missed but seeing nonely allowed to put in 36 inch box trees a lot of processes in place and thoorts. >> i understand but it says 60 inch box not a 36 inch box it worked out fine but should have been addressed so i think this is part of the penalty phase continued because it was not classified, i.e., personally feel that. >> sure it was the key issue screwed up who doesn't talk to who the fact that was a 60 inch box approved

and put in a smaller box and you know that's a red flag we're done all right. other discoveries sunlight of other discoveries and even since our last conversations it said the musician union is getting the bond we have to take care of and mta is saying it is blocking a red light this has to be done and mta is saying that is an ada issue big time and needs to be dealt with i think where i'm going let's remember that the developers fault in the first place and not going according to the plan the penalty phase should include for me and impact some fees we'll talk about and

at their cost they work you with and dpw especially ada the department to do what is finally right for the site and appropriate plans they evaluated the utility ada compliant that and that's the answer to it and . >> the big penalty phase. >> i need to remind everyone what was going into before us a previous permit so some penalties related to that with the request of the new permit not penalties per say so certain situation number two, penalties fees are requested in the required i don't want to confuse the two permits with only permit not compiled with and a new

permit now you're deciding on that. >> so i guess for what i'm hinting at is dpw has enforcement authority for the prior permit and how to decide though how to handle that and how this influences that prior permit was issued. >> yeah. >> and our suggestion be based on conditions that include a all the things i've listed in my laundry list. >> or what can not. >> it is- we canned impose present e pentsz on this permit but look at an number two, fee applied the trees were destroyed what was mraeptd out there but not penalties.

>> so if. >> i'm sorry speak into the mike. >> so changing the balance from penalty to number two, substitute penalties number two, and number two, fees of trees that were destroyed and to be replaced. >> plus awe inheritance to a dpw plan that is consistent with ada compliant and plus begins to a plan that satisfies the current needs and recommendations of urban forestry. >> that's where i'm at. >> this is one of those i like to keep the jurisdiction that is what you said. >> continue it. >> yeah. continue it suggest or require all the parties need to be involved are involved balls yes, we may want to impose the number two, fees but mitigate the city has transcribed to some

of the confusion i'd like to hear a final final resolution we know how many trees and what size and we're not going to get to that tonight. >> all right. so move for a continuance. >> madam director suggested dates. >> depended on how much time the parties might want to have to discuss that to reach some kind of - >> let's hear how much time do you need to come to a resolution. >> chris from public works my recommendation to we know how many trees and what sizes i feel like it could be straightforward for us it is hard to this to say those are the changes that need to be made that's my recommendation we're short

staffed i feel a little bit like urban forestry is punished we spent a tremendous in the amount of and to continue to i don't believe you need to absolutely defer to our recommendations but feel like you can make a decision that binds the applicant to follow public works recommends at this point so in terms of how much time i would say 1250 weeks and come back as much as possible thank you. >> happy to hold it for a week we're not intending to punish the department we all agree we've got bits of information and not comfortable with a decision fill that changes. >> on a practical matter for the board to issue a decision needs to be articulated with a

little bit of detail what is required. >> sure i understand. >> so if it is acceptable to other parties we'd like to move to continue for one week. >> how is our calendar. >> better than the one on the 20th. >> knowing we need to cooperate with mta and perhaps planning on the changing of planting and getting the curve issues with the mta and . >> briefing needs to be 3 days before. >> we didn't need briefing the next meeting is the 13 of january that's another option for the board there's room on that calendar. >> and in the advisory committee of the holidays. >> move to continue to january 13th. >> second. >> okay. that's allowed time

for the party to discuss the city's requirements and come up with a plan. >> and new information that was presented before us. >> okay. >> i think i heard you say commissioner president lazarus inform additional. >> to be presented with a plan. >> on that motion by commissioner president lazarus to continue to january 13, 2016. >> commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig. >> okay. that that motion carries the item be continued as decides by the board. >> so we will move on to the next item item 7 mission bay vs. the entertainment commission. >> we'll need a quick break to get set up here. >> we're going to switch city attorney's for that item and by

the time everybody is back we'll be ready to go this is at mission bay protesting the grant of a place of entertainment for a mixed use event center if 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with the property entertainment for professional basketball games and concert and food and beverages including acholic beverages this is permit d c-1352 we'll hear in the appellant once all the commissioners are back.

>> to deputy superintendant maybe our city attorney can give us some specifics what we're hearing and specifically i i mean as far as guidance regarding what the 0 appeal is about. >> the appeal is regarding an issuance of a conditional review

entertainment permit. >> what the board needs to focus on is police code 4 criteria criteria and what the appellant is alleging that there basically 3 issues first arguing that the project is inconsistent with the mission bay south development plan and not adequately for traffic and post events and finally not provided adequately for noise control. >> thank you for . >> and ceqa findings going to be required if the boards will decide to deny the appeal. >> thank you. >> shall i begin and good evening commissioner president lazarus i'm patrick i represent

motorbike alliance the appellant in f this matter as council said this challenges the entertainment commission approval of place of entertainment permit for the paroled golden state warriors arena police code instances that apply here my presentation will not repeat brief but address the option briefs that were submitted by the entertainment commission and specifically in the issuance of noise and traffic with respect to travel police code section subsection f-2 a priority can't be issued with quote notwithstanding the mitigation provided under the security plans submit by the applicant the building structure excerpt or location of the proposed business can't accommodate the type and vacuum

of vehicle and pedestrian traffic anticipated. >> similarly the decision f provides that a permit can't be issued quote the permit applicant has not priority a security plan that adequately addresses the safety of persons and property and provides for the individuals and ratify as explained in the brief materials the ceqa documents is actual finding support and virtually compel finding under f-2 and 4 i've quoted now in an attempt to rebut this straightforward analysis about the entertainment commission and the applicant site to a prior case the g. >> one a. >> thank you. >> as indicating the projects ceqa flthsdz with irrelevant or

can be disregarded or the underlying taken here that position has no merit in in this case didn't stand for what the commission did and disregard the finding report that are inconsistent with the applicants request now the construction of a single very large home on 4 residential lots in a residential area the city prepared a negative declaration that it will not is negative significant impacts nevertheless, they denied the building permit due to quote the massive scale of the proposed project and i think xhashlt with the character and stability of the residential neighborhood in

terms of the city as fufts explained by the court quote in denying the permit the commission went beyond the environmental concerns and focused on the effected neighborhood the decision reaffirmed quote an environmental review is an informational documents in terms of the city is based on outside of ceqa that is different from the entertainment commission and the applicant suggested to whilst washing the projects impacts as disclosed in details in the environmental the city cannot turn a blind and the purchase of ceqa to provide information not in a vacuum but to to the decided makers on the project one of those underlying

acts actions is the entertainment permit and that's even if the ultimate determination is slightly different now the warriors rely on smith versed the county of la their implication with respect to travel impacts is unsupportable and frankly the reliance on the smith case is squalling supports the alliances position and denial of the permit i'll quote that case to be constitutional those impacts must be the adult business first amendment case, etc. not observing to the expressed activities in the

adult business and is degree of detriment impacts required to deny the adult business a permits for the property location. >> this is incredible language from the detriment 10 additional trips a day that non-compliant be sufficient to deny a permit while a hundred would be the legislative body need not talk about the quantify terms but, of course, the standards should convey a substantial impact in terms of the applicants case squalling supports the common sense interpretation of the plain language of the city's ordinance in fact, the smith cases expressly affirms a denial of the traffic concerns for the traffic to generate one hundred

vehicle trips and not run afoul of the first amendment this is well beyond a hundred vehicle trips a day we're on the order of one thousand in our brief numerous numerous specific statements acknowledgments of transportation projects essentially the noise analysis is the same there are specific findings of noise impacts resulting from the crowd enjoys the opposing briefs don't give an indication of youd crowd noise should be considered or not they white wash the issue altogether in closing thank you for your time and ask the commission uphold and deny the requested permit thank you.

>> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> members mary gibson and dunn we respectfully ask the boards uphold the grant of the place of entertainment or poa and i'm going to shared with the cfo for the arena i will address what question building do police code section sets out the ground rules for granting and make it clear the entertainment commission must must grant the permit unless it can show the standards pertaining to health and safety so forth in the subsection are not met in this case it contains traffic and noise safety security.

>> crowd arrival and departure on this record it demonstrates under that police code the permit can't properly be denied the event center was designed with the advice of motion and acoustical jerseys for entrances to meet all the codes and have the features traffic transit and pedestrian safety were planned for that with the mta planning the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. police department and dpw the hospital assess plan to assure the local access from usf and local neighborhood it has conditions of approval to protect the public with the good neighbor policy turn to the appellants legal argument they complain i claim the event

center should be denied under subsection with the legal authorized determined the event center is in the advisory committee of that demonstration it would be improper exorcise the entertainment commission to turned down the permit and in turn be illegal the appellant wants to substitute the ceqa so for the police code and applies the incorrect argument to sections here in applicable prior precedent of this board in the case the america's cup case are clear the standards and the police code are different for example, a common ceqa is vehicular traffic slow if an intersection is congested to the point of failure in an mature environment like no, it is impossible to mitigate those

because streets can't be widened t or it favors bicycle safety and the appellants claim the city must deny the permit because of ceqa impacts is clearly incorrect and a if you look at the case law from the supreme court it is clear you couldn't set up a regulatory regime the city can't deny it because the intersection was failing again, the record supports the event passed the muster the writing was contemplated by the codes, however, we've attached a supplemental additional findings for the boarders consideration and respectfully request you ask to find those and i'm going to turn it over to mr. collins to

discuss the details on the plan and the security plan. >> good evening a slide if we could put it up on the power point i'm steve k o o the warriors new person i've worked in the operating worked at a facility operator in the management of a variety of supporters and entertainment views and worked with the worries and prior to that i was the vice president of facilities at the madison square garden i managed the operations of the square gardens rear and the bacteria theatre and la forum it is important to note without exception security food and

beverages and directed the employees to madison square garden and prior to that i held various operating rules at the sports context with the metz and the devils and giant stadium i look forward to bringing my 25 increase of best practices to make that a world-class facilitated san francisco deserves the entertainment commission is created a good neighbor policy that reflects a number of the industries best practices and the warriors will adhere to them with the restrictions and messages and code of conduct to urge the patrons to be respect and this is not impacting our neighbors. >> sorry you mentioned a slide

show is that speed limit to move forward. >> sorry. >> just an overview of the project and finally, the warriors plan to provide the appropriate levels of security inside and outside of the event center want to take a moment to address the best practices and security procedures that the golden state warriors will have we have a strong presence of manpower inside and outside the venue with one patrons security to that we will staff and attend the officers from the san francisco police department and outside the venue we'll have an event and san francisco police department foot patrol officers, and, secondly, the cctv located

in the venue that is consistently monitoring the issues in realtime and third the command center will be shared by the san francisco police department and the sfmta and golden state warriors and surrounding the event center and lastly we have extensive training not only security but the food and beverage and the servers and other 0 things for a successful of events to come thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hear if the entertainment commission now. >> good evening board members i'm jocelyn kane the executive director of the entertainment commission as our brief illustrates we grant the golden

state warriors was proper and what is in the police code as you may know 9 entertainment commission is a charged commission made up of 7 appointed members that are regulated and balance the interest the night time businesses and the public at large the night time businesses contributor the visitors that is critical to the development of a vibrant currently life it is not just you currently event but a major economic benefit to the city according to the 2012 study we apply 50 thousand people and serve 80 million customers and spend $40 billion and at the same time the public welfare is of great concern and a permitting system for the health and safety by putting position on the permits and endorsing those

as you've heard the subsection in the brief codes set the standards forever the entertainment commission but interestingly this is a language that indicates the commission must grant the permit nonetheless outside they are outlined in the brief the police code explicit require the showing of after entertainment venue given the realties of you were life their untrusted with the applications for the planning, zoning & economic committee on november 10th the entertainment commission grand the worries event center a poa and the event indicated the event center holds 41 basketball games and other events with a capacity of 18 thousand people the poa as the heath and a copy

of this conditional grant in our brief the good neighbor policy that we apply the mr. president, noise control plan are attached as conditions the first condition again, the good neighbor policy is really a separate per condition of best practices for nights of entertainment with the entertainment commission venue a visitation of those conditions with those may trigger the commission to take action the second condition kwoesz on a conditional review is for a security plan as submitted and heard about that it tailored to make a venue and can be modify by the commission or myself and on the poe that about comply

with noise plans based on the size and scope that is reflected the commission determined that was prudent and okay to attach those conditions to the poe the appellants brief, however, the entertainment commission looked to the land use authority in this case ocii as approval to approve the basis for the action and we have president jane representing ocii and the general council the leading environmental planner with questions on ceqa and it is the appellants brief is lacks the transportation plan, however, the entertainment commission screwdriver the sfmta resolution and i as adequate assess for all modes of transportation and we

have the department of workforce development to answer any questions that the board might have the appellant assert it lacks security guard for the noise impact and programs to keep down the noise their addressed in the eir and in the irons letter a number of exhibits about noise impacts in your brief it is subject to review and inspection by the police department and fire department and the department of building inspection and electrical provisions as well as the commission staff sound inspection to see the security guards are in place and the approvals about took place on completion of the construction the commission experiences a reformed and reasonable was not to deny the grants all 3 noted the commission has permit

explained within the constraint of city and finally we note from the permits violates the conditions of a permit violates the law the commission has amble and remedyal enforcement powers given the commission director that's me the authority to continue with the overview in the operation of the venue the sections outlined enforcement including the restriction and issuance of penalties and in compliance with the security plan and the police department residences the authority to enforce as well thank you for your time and i respectfully ask that the board reject that and uphold the conditional grants of the golden state warriors we agree with the wirings and ask the board of appeals have the

appeals outlined in the warriors brief i'm available to answer any questions and also in attendance from the city attorney's office and scott sanchez. >> i have a question you can't alluded is there a point the permit is not conditional. >> the point the building is constructed constructed and all permits in place. >> you retain the jurisdiction over this. >> absolutely. >> well, after the building is done too. >> thank you. >> i have several questions jocelyn kane. >> one is in the information you've provided us you talk about the legal basis for you're

determination. >> i see very little information as to any analytical how you read the applicants application to our final position. >> so. >> is the analysis occur by you and your staff regarding the issues of traffic, noise. >> etc., etc. or did it also that come from the applicant. >> well, much of the information obviously regarding the plans for entertainment is from the applicant as far as the issues of traffic and noise and zoning we rely on in this case quite a bit of donation that came through the applicant, of course, but -

>> other departments understood. >> to consider those impacts. >> i'm trying to understand how you're commission made the determination of adequacy not quite clear even when i read the transcripts. >> joan maybe you can help me it is a legal question. >> it is a process question. >> john from the city attorney's office so the entertainment commission staff in the entertainment commission had the full environmental impact report for their review in terms of processing this permit and ultimately making a decision that report addresses many of the transportation issues that the appellants raise and many of the noise that the

va alumnus document part of decision makers it was something that was discussed to some stent as well as at the hearing this project sponsor submitted their initial plans to the entertainment commission in terms of what their security protocols will look like and the ems security presence those kinds of issues about the architectural design they're built into the architecture design of the project itself much of the discussion of the please officers presence and parking control officers the crowd control once patrons leave the venue that is reflected in the ifrtd and subsequent responses to the comments that part of that documentation is

included in the appeal of the environmental impact report that went to the board of supervisors ocii had a response to the appellants eir concerns we attached that as a exhibit to our deposition that was obviously not available at the time of entertainment commission had their decision that was november 9th or 10 sorry the hearing at the board of supervisors on the eir was just last night nevertheless, much of that most of that information, in fact, is a rehash of things we've seen and respond to in the environmental documentation that occurred prior to the entertainment commission hearing that information is part of what was available to the commissioners and to jocelyn kane and her staff.

>> let me discuss that my last question in the of an example yes. the environmental documentation is very extensive and complicated let's take one issue of noise when i labor day what was in the environmental document that i looked at the various entitlements that went through and approvals then he look at the entertainment commissions submittal there was one letter to the fact that is from one of the architects involved it is weak that's all i see and that only deals with a payment of the interior no discussion of exterior. >> that letter that was part have the record the entertainment commission submitted a direct response to a

particular letter that the appellants submitted as part of their appeal to this body so it was a direct response probation officer that it wasn't in any way, shape, or form to explain the noise control and the noise analysis that was done for the overall project. >> we looked at the example the reason i'm raising this this kind of venue is much more complex than most of us see including the treatment the complexity is not because of it's size in terms of what the impacts are it is not like you know a small combo band in a bar we see in appeals i'm wondering what occurred in terms of the

analysis that be able to provide a determination of adequacy. >> i'm not quite seeing it. >> well, maybe i'll try it this way it is very much the reason i think why one of the arguments that the entertainment commission put forward as well as the project sponsor that the analysis is done for the purpose of environmental impact didn't equality with the kind of analysis that is take into account with the public heather that the commissions looks like for example, the standards term used in the police code as part of when they're looking at uses the word mitigate in the sense in the police code it is co-local if you looked at the definition to mitigate or

mitigation in the context of ceqa is an entirely different type of vocabulary it is a way to address an impact that exceeds the threshold of significance that the city adopted and finds a way to get down to a level of less than significant those are ceqa quality act terms they can form the decision but not a one for one correlation so the entertainment commission looked at to the environmental impact but brought it it as well as jocelyn their experienceer in terms of dealing with entertainment venues throughout the city what occurs before events and after events how the

security works with crowd control issues how those issues with disperil are addressed and a lot of discussion as you recall at the entertainment commission about restaurants and retail and how they were interacting with the patrons and things to like the odors that are part of that discussion they've had plans about the lighting and other issues some of those things are presented in a different way in a different standard for the police code determination that is if the environmental context. >> last question it's indicated that especially in discussions along the conditions that the entertainment commission will be monitoring doing a number of

things how does one monitor or test when a facility is not in operation you don't have is 18 thousand visitors and 2 thousand staff right. >> so we monitor when that facility is built i think that is what you're asking me. >> yeah. >> we have some experience to go back to our earlier comment with regards to the america's cup and the at&t park that is in and of itself a large entertainment venue we don't zeal with things that are grand i'm happy to say the entertainment commission will deal with big projects we're capable of doing that we work with every other department with capacity with the police

department and the mta and all the other enforcements out there in the the permit we won't do that then it is in our jurisdiction to manage what they'll do by a security what that final permit is issued does that make sense. >> okay. a follow-up question because there is the question that was raised either in the documents or otherwise the maximum is approximately 18 thousand 5 hundred. >> right and that plus employees whereas the american people is 42 thousand. >> much bigger. >> relate to that a lot more employees and does anybody have

any history or any transitional sorry any history on the how that back was measured from a sound standpoint this has come up before around explicit emerge it was 19 years ago the hearings were probable going forward but what is the city's history in with specific in the entertainment commission history specifically award to handing a 42 thousand square feet ball park. >> fortunately or unfortunately, the entertainment commission was not around during the building and the entitlements for at&t park we inherited it. >> we, however, working hard

on sound like issues and enforcement with at&t park sometimes better than other times you mean it is an open air facilities that is different and we have brought management and even their landlords to our commission we've had to manage through some issues we were not there in the beginning but we are engaged in working with any issues that come up around noise in particular with at&t park right now. >> was there any in anyone's research and the answer can be yes or no did anybody bother to go back and review the ceqa considerations warped to airport and noise and noise and traffic. >> i did not.

>> i don't know that anyone in city staff does. >> i can't speak to at&t park but this is similar issue that is raised was raised before you for the america's cup venue not i think approximately two years ago the issue about you should look to what did impact in the environmental ceqa context and equality that with what is a grounds for denial for the permit for the entertainment commission similar issues in this case you decided the permit was appropriate and the standards were indeed different i think one of the things i think that is part of conditional nature of the permit it jocelyn's committee needs to be satisfied before openly for

business it meets all the requirement of the treatment priority there is sound like monitoring equipment use, if any, staff and suggested all the various departments involved that including the police department are all need to be comfortable that the venue is operability properly under the entertainment commission permit or didn't become final and the building can't open for business. >> i wanted to weigh in to remind the board you're taking a refresh look at this thing you have to uphold the permit unless you can make one the could have in terms of the applicants as twardz carried their burden of

proof. >> is the gentleman going to testify or is ask a question at what point can we speak to the gentleman. >> through the president. >> if you want to address him now that's fine. >> the issue was raised this was an improper that was my words improper use and improper use on behalf of the ocii to take the leads development aside and adopt it to this use can you give us some clarification on what the flexibility that ocii and the predecessor agency redevelopment agency has with regards to making shifts in an original plan. >> board members. >> commissioner swig i'm jim

morales the imperial council for ocii i've you've highlighted the regime over mission bay south part avenue thirty year development adopted by the board of supervisors that does create establish certain zoning district for mission bay south and provides for basic land use control in terms of height and size of building and how much square footage into those districts and provides for authorized uses this event center is in the commercial industrial retail the mission bay setting the district that provides the wide it array of uses not residential not permit in the area and in that area the

allowed uses include principle and secondary used for artists with the center fails into and secondary like night time taefrment and recreation and public use and non-industrial uses all of those secondary uses are listed and permitted in this the ocii executive director makes a secondary use determination which is not really didn't fit within that category but the proposed secondary use meets the objectives the planning design controls of the plan and provides a use that provides a positive impact to the community and is compatible and necessary

and desirable in a 29 page determination the executive director read the extensive finding the event center meet the principle and secondary use the secondary use the commission as well adopted several resolutions including a major phase approval as well as schematic design approvals all of which found that the event center complied with the redevelopment plan goals and land use the amendment were made to the ann letter designs for the mission bay south the design for design documents but those controls are the sole discretion and determined by the commission to be consistent with the

development plan so an extensive process that was objective at a pubically noticed hearing the chad determination was an administrative determination was made at the public hearing and subject to public testimony from the proponent and opponents of the project so this and in addition to that very thorough analysis and determination the appellants motorbike alliance and also intend continued to raise the issue of the venues and other matters including their appeal of the environmental impact report where they focused on this as one of the key issues even though not appropriate claim in it we briefed it and responded

to comments at the board of supervisors hearing and it's been raised again here in the entertainment commission and raised before the on the appeal of the subdivisions map it is a question that's been adequately addressed question has been asked and answered many, many times but nevertheless, provided more daily detail of the finding relate to the use and the basic land use controls and from the board would wants to hear that or additional information. >> for the edification of the public we focus on a conversation about the actual use and whether it is appropriate but how much would

you say in at does this the discretion of the administrative decision the discretion of the ocii director influenced by the other spirit providing jobs support and neighborhoods rounding out the emit development project to give it an infrastructure, etc., etc., etc. >> board members you hit upon the redevelopment objectives that are part of the secondary use discretionary or determination to the executive director decision looks at the site of view does the promoted secondary use eliminate blight and florescence in the aersz areas that is an site not

developed in almost 20 years of the redevelopment plans including providing the use that activates the site that provides jobs and public service to the community the one of the redevelopment objectives the director focused on does that provide uses in the project area to respond to the event center and provide a venue that is absent in the city and county of san francisco and is a response to a privately financed and privately proposed project that clearly meets market conditions at this point and another objective to strengthen the economic base of the project area and communities the record is complete with information how this provides jobs and other

uses that are beneficial to the community. >> i could go on a number 12 objectives, in fact, broad in nature a but specifically addresses in the secondary that are met. >> thank you for your explanation i appreciate it. >> okay start to take public comment may i have it show of hands how many people plan to speak. >> i want to remind the audience public comment is not for representatives of parties so represents are people with a financial or other close connection to a party architects and lawyers and other advisors or agents and appeals with an

organization like this one officers or board members of the governing board of association or those represents the party those people should speak during the time loaded people that want to speak line up on the far wall and the president has set go minutes per speaker we'll be happy to begin. >> good evening, commissioners my name is annette i was in the southeast sector of the neighborhood where the warriors are bringing the new event center i i have to tell you it's been a long haul but the warriors or worries have come out to our neighborhood

over the last two years dpaej not only with the warriors team but all the governing agencies and representatives from the police department, the fire department and everyone involved ♪ entire process to make sure that the communities need are met through the project i mean this is something unprecedented i've never seen anything you know at this magnitude by the community partnerships are just so incredibly done well i was there in bayview we have allow night time there oftentimes what happens crime increases with lack of jobs and lines and lack of activities families inform engage in the warriors have really thought this threw and pay attention and

to appeal this process and bring in biotech firms that didn't insure there will be jobs that doesn't raise any types of development needs to have dinner at night and see shows and mediated up with other friends it is truly the kind of opportunities to bring san franciscans together in one place to enjoy so thank you and please deny this appeal it's ridiculous thank you >> ms. ms. bloomerly if you wouldn't mind filling out a speaker card that will be helpful next item, please. >> >> hi excuse me. thank you for thank

you for having me. i'm bob steinberg lived in potrero hill for the last 27 years as a homeowner and not objected to any project that was proposed anywhere on - i am just kind of appalled at some of the arguments by the worries that were just raised for example, the ceo co o mention he he's worked on a lot of projects but not 5 hundred to one thousand away if the san francisco general where the hospital patients receive the treatment to get assess in and out and to not be disturbed or effected by noise i obviously have concerned about my neighborhood we've had a lot of projects approved and a lot of traffic and noise and parking concerns so i actually

attended a meeting the dog patch association sfmta came and spoke extensively and they permanent their entire solution to take a view the traffic parking control officers and from what we said not a single traffic control officers assigned to the dog patch the point i i know i'm out of times i believe the warriors had to that i have even though their project was not approved now we have a half hour backed program that didn't account for many of the issues that the neighbors my friends i've known in my neighborhoods are concerned about but really appreciate commissioner fung's question i think you were getting at the had a right the problem thank you for your

time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is sarah bennett i'll cut to the chase and say that i'm a mom i'm a san francisco resident a long term san francisco residents and happen to be a social working a mom of a son with severe congenial heart conditions born at san francisco general on a 2012 and come into contact with children about disability and medical needs on a regular basis my main concern is traffic because i mean, that's critical a matter of minutes is a matter of life and death for our children when in my son was born he came omen for two weeks before heart surgery at 2 and a half weeks old i i thought i was told this

was permitted we are 10 minutes away it is a serious experience i can't imagine how it impacts families now i can say while at the old sites looking forward to being at the new campus all rooms were shared and very crowded and allowed on the usf campus i'm concerned about the impacts on families on people be able to assess immediate care at the world-class hospital their specialists and families need to have access immediately thank you. >> ms. bennett fill out a speaker cards that would be helpful next item, please. >> >> hello, i'm also a mother actually, i was. >> can you speak into the

microphone. >> i have a son born under november of last year with several congenial he spent months at san francisco general and part of the admission or move to mission bay campus. >> mentioned earlier was if it had been put into they're planning how the effects of the neighborhood i can say to get access to the hospital it has taken time to get to the hospital 2 hours for a mile with the new stadium that will end up effecting children's lives it is been mentioned how it effects the neighborhood and the quality of life for the residents vital.

>> what district do you currently reside in. >> sunset. >> thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal beginning with the appellant, sir. >> i think sxhun really got to the heart of the matter when asked to the ann lively document the only document the eir that the eir was detailed with a lot of studies and reports and finding well guess what those finding are in significant traffic and noise impacts

ambassador when the city now wants to distance itself from the finding and i wrote down it is entirely different well in the ceqa analysis is entirely different how is it that is the only document that the city claims to have relied on when it analyzed this permit the city can't have it both was not cite to the eir or sole analysis of the permit and disawe vow the conclusions the same donate it solely relied on with respect to the zoning i think this is telling that when asked about the secondary use finding none recommending the

city has talked about this is claims the night time and public use of a non-industrial use none fit and, in fact, even the applicants property finding again whitewashed that issue not saying what the secondary use they talk about the discretion of the ocii well the are determination of the ocii based on the record statistics in the resolution the g w s.org it can make its own independent determination not bound by what was included i have i administratively by the ocii the final there's a reference to the america's cup entertainment appeal i looked at the record of

the decision it doesn't cbo through or into this analysis of the ceqa with the finding the entertainment permit and of it did no judicial determination that analysis is right what are we left with that analysis could be wrong that board made that determination and finally i note to respond to my quote from the smith case which is, in fact, stands for the proposition that traffic is a very real consideration under it thank you. >> sir question minor question but a lot of you're discussion relates to the eir and it's finding a couple of points you made that were fairly

specific to this permit one was that you're acoustical engineer and consultant i don't know engineer talked about the standard by which the analysis is done where it is based on a factor above ambient did you folks take any measurements. >> we didn't no. >> i have a question as well as you mentioned the america's cup and really the commissioners before you were before you on the panel during the america's cup who is mission bay alliance we were aware of the who they were can you explain that to me. >> mission bay alliance a nonprofit organization of people who are deeply concerned about the future of the mission bay area

for example, one of the primary contacts bruce spaulding the advice chancellor of usf when the mission bay project was, in fact, approved and so the people have very deep concerns about how not only is this project inconsistent with the future growth of the usf and the biotech industry but this project hinders the development of the existing operation out interest that's who these people are. >> they're in the neighborhood. >> or the doctors. >> there are nurses, there are a lot of employees associated with usf and a very large group of people. >> how about stakeholders for

uc sf and businesses owners and other. >> you're citing's i don't want to be argumentative but this is pretty narrow you talk about doctors and nurses and biotech industries that is pretty special interest to me i haven't heard because we're from a young lady in the sunset that was unfortunately tragically a child but the interests in mission bay what are the residents and small business owners and all the stakeholders that have chosen at the don't care about biotech industry and appreciate usf.

>> i'm not the community organizer not involved in those efforts i can bring up someone to answer that question. >> come up to the mike. >> do you wish to address the question to someone else. >> no, it is- no. >> sorry. >> it is just when someone steps to a microphone this has happened before we've had other people that make broad statements and when their asked to identify something that is coming down to the special interests and not the neighborhood preference. >> that was the reason for the questioning. >> i interrupted any fellow commission. >> go ahead step to the my case the question is that i asked who was mission bay alliance i got the big banner thing so are you going to give

me the simple. >> i'm leo schwartz i can tell you what president of the united states patrick was explaining it is fund as a organizer we've tried to get the people against the rather than the mission bay alliance is a loose term if you want to put people against the arena i've spent 5 quitclaims weeks in potrero and dog patch yesterday at the board of supervisors we submitted 4 hundred papers of opposition from people that are not in the biotech that live in mission bay and dog patch and potrero two thousand letters to the supervisors not ucsf people people in the neighborhood we commission the pool that was released doesn't days ago voting

members of san francisco are in favor down from 61 percent. >> i'm to interrupt i'm not sure that is the topic at hand. >> i heard. >> - i'm still talking do you work for mission bay alliance or you have volunteer. >> i work i'm a organizer. >> thank you that's answers my question all right. thank you. >> mr. schwartz submit a speaker card. >> we'll hear again from the folks. >> good evening members of the board mary murphy address a couple addresses just to be clear the question about the provision of the design approved by appendixes it pressed the

permit as explained that is was not built it has to pass the sound test it is a can i believe thing the building has not been built in terms of what is before the board the materials that extensive what is at issue i'll noted for the record before the entertainment commission included site plans that showed the layout and lyft will pick up people and shuttles those are xrerls and information about the traffic and circulation the t mp is part of analysis and front of the the place of entertainment dominos how people enter and exit the site a lot of information on the record and lots of phone call before this commission i mean, i'll make the

agreement not notwithstanding with the gentleman said very clear that is on the issue the supreme court of the united states said restrictions on speech no greater than the furtherance of the government interests it means you can't have a speech a regulatory regime to deny a permit unless it the gnarling crafted this is to the gentleman's credit cited for the proposition of overview and prior regimes in this case, in fact, he cried a hypothetical as to examples of things narrow enough but what was for the supreme court of the under the circumstances u united states established in the government wants to deny the permit they are a have a narrowly crafted interest i'm saying to you, you what the gentleman is suggesting is that

the ceqa standards of significant that are completely different from what we're you're being asked to look at in if the police code is those are simply not the same this is untrue and under his theory if someone has a speech or an intersection that is failing they'll denied on that basis that will not pass muster under the first amendment and respectfully submit this board has a lot of evidence to over review about the traffic and crowd control and noise control and the conditions of approval i'll respectfully submit not properly denied we've met the standards of the police code and respectfully urge this board to deny this appeal and uphold this permit i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> okay. i have some quells.

>> you have a question good. >> our discussion senator has not at all centered on the adequacy of the environmental not talked about the fact that is volumeless. >> sorry the traffic report; right? >> but i think in this kind of a hearing let's talk some questions that are immask of what you're looking at as an example in our security plan. >> you talk about exiting assess exiting comes out of two exits and two actionly exits are you sure. >> i should bring mr. collins

up there's a primary entrance and secondary entrance are you talking about that. >> it was lists. >> would you like me to put it on the overhead. >> sure. >> mr. koelgz will address that. >> so steve collins golden state warriors you're correct a primary exit entry exits in the plaza area you can see in the upper left hand corner. >> primary entrance and exits

so about a one acre plaza and another one on the other side of the building and a secondary exit here and secondary on the other side and the garage you make you're way as well as down to the garage the nine hundred and 50 spaces without coming to the outside. >> that's you're controlled exits. >> that's correct. >> in terms of life safety you have more than that; right? >> yeah. that is correct there's emergency. >> got to be. >> emergency doors there are limited the egress capacity of the building and the width of the doors out of the main lobby and the egress are substantial for exiting.

>> yeah. >> i'd like to add that commissioner fung that was referred to the the kennison letter they were monitoring you're familiar with the modeling with what is needed the inserted sidewalks for crowd containment so the the inside and outside were modeled with motion experts to accommodate the crowd and make sure that was not bottle in the case and egging e in regress and egging ingress in emergency situations and let's continue that line and space it oout further.

>> let's say people are drunk and killing someone else the discussion besides the flow of traffic you you know i understand it took a arrangement to redo that stuff i don't see any discussion of that in the security plan. >> the beyond how you're staffing and what is immediately there okay. so how does that enter face with other agencies like the police department. >> good evening, members adam from the department of workforce development we've been working on this specific logistics since they announced this in 2014 and including the extensive conversations with the mta and as well as the san francisco

police department so the city has jurisdiction outside the site and . >> meaning outside of the site. >> outside of the premises so the warriors have contract with private security and sfpd with the san francisco golden state warriors and they enter the private right away to catch the tiny and the bus on 16th street there will be a public right-of-way the new pedestrian safety building of the police department is on third street and mission rock and deploying typical beat working class were beat control and coverage around the neighborhood for the parking

garages to the muni platforms and the traffic to and from the arena and been addressed as a mission bay transportation improvement fund that was adapted at the board of supervisors last night that takes the funds generated by the project to cover the cost. >> is jeremy enjoying. >> excuse me. and his fellow worker. >> yes. thanks agriculture i have a couple of more. >> just so 16 officers at this point for g s w and currently how many are assigned to around during both events. >> i don't have the exact number at at&t they have over 42 and this is a maximums of 18 thousand plus the average

factoring in the warriors game shows the ice theatre is 9 thousand 5 hundred a fraction of at&t a similar arrangements the transfer control officers monitor the area and more officers that serve at&t you're in the soma and the bridge to coverage and the financial district i don't have an exact. >> can i get a percentage i attend quite a few of the of events and the presence is quite strong. >> the police presence is strong one of the concerns has been traffic we've had expensive conversations in the neighborhood that led to the official endorsement from the usf hospitalized and the largest biotech neighbors from the

advisory committee and part of the reason we're able to do that we're deploying for than at at&t park something like 42 parking control officers fourth and king and at&t park ball park and up to depending on the size of the events 28 parking control officers in mission bay. >> okay. thank you. >> anyone else i have a couple. >> many manufacturer two other questions one is the i've never considered the police code to be to related to sound not definitive and it is relating weak

any question is you have two well known engineers who have on staff but i don't see anything related to the levels we designed for are mitigated i don't see any of that. >> so to that point so the police code as you may know so forth a standard in the codes itself and the condition the approval that says we must be sound tests and can't be open for business without psa the sounds test in the design criteria i can speak to this personally we've discuss that i personally discussed it with the design team they have to design to meet the sound test and the listed strategies that are in

the memo that kendall provided that's why they're working with two different acoustical engineers a different piece of the puzzle it is up sustainable to build a structure like this and not been able to open for business because we didn't pass the sound test i think in that regards especially the fact it is a conditional permit it is conditions an psa that test before opening before business that is a very powerful incentive for the permit holder to make sure a performance stated that is met and the second thing i'll say in terms of thinking through the other issues with respect to the design one of the things they've take into consideration all felt it the exiting and entrance and

building in all the things in having a world-class facility one other point in the security plan it is a quiet a high ratio of the security guards to patrons and always be not less than one to 100 percent and there is a combination with a good neighbor policy that is also attached a condition of approval that is an extensive list of things that are incumbent upon the folks we will perform this facility performs that will be directed to directed do the acoustical engineers and manager the good neighbor policy crowds we could lose have our license suspend or revoked to me those are so

powerful i understand you're concerns commissioner fung i hear what you're saying commissioner fung from our prospective to make that investment a tremendous if you can imagine department with any risks to lose to an enforcements measure would be on good business practice because of mr. collins you can hear we have populated the permit holders team with the people at the highest level of experience with the premier facility that know how to work with the police and mr. collins. >> i'm sorry. >> when the sound is loading

so many above ambiance let's see there are taking measurements which ambient is full of construction then that is entirely different than when they do it some other times they'll do it different times of the day and also let's go back to my question of entertainment if this they have to be safety first before it can open. >> right. >> how can it on if there is no function to test. >> well, if i - i've defer to the entertainment commission but one of the things we're testing the issue is the thought a.m. if i did sound in the facility so objective if someone is giving a speech that is a certain amount

of sound to make sure that the sounds doesn't capitalize that is more likely that would be the more likely thing we need to test to and as mr. cain said this this is an implores facility to engage with the continuation measures in the building not possible with at&t facility it is an open end. >> let me ask they'll have the opportunity to come up the co-relation if the and i believe that the facility to be properly designed appropriate sound conciliation what happens when you have thousands of

people in the plaza. >> well, you know the good neighbor policy does address. >> it's too late for the neighbors. >> the in fact, of the matter it is conceivable complaints i have been witnessed at the entertainment commission to people coming in and complaining the enforcement mechanisms are real for example, part of especially on something like that that is on the site where the security guards will be in control of the situation know their purpose of crowd control on the facility that is controlled by itself warriors would be to make sure we didn't do anything not consistent with the good neighbor policy and then created some support nuisance like i said the mechanism is stringent and serious i know the lady wants to speak to that. >> she has the same issue the

story is a different situation. >> as those people are powerfully into the street it is arguably. >> it is 45 thousand. >> as the at&t. >> all right. >> board members adams from the department of workforce development there is sort of 3 elements to you're question on noise one before you today, the amplified sound as part of the place of entertainment and the are arrival and departure and in that particular case the most likely generation codify noise a crowd in the plazas or getting to and from most likely the muni platform and moving the muni platform closer to the events and further from the receptor the medical records from the

hospital the hospital which is closet didn't have optimal windows we'll put a platform adjacent to the center and the parking garage as mr. collins mentioned blow the podium so is a small spear of impact that has been studied extensively in the eir that was certified on the third and appeal uphold by the board yesterday a third element which would come back to the entertainment commission as necessary would be if the project sponsor desires to do outdoor amplification for a concert in the plaza at which point apply to the entertainment commission for the appropriate approvals to do that i will what we're discussing appeal of the

place of entertainment the noise inside the building as mentioned reinforced building different from airport and the 95 hundred seat for the america's cup two years ago. >> you heard my question then. >> does that answer your question. >> sorry do you remember what the capacity for the candle stick or recidivism or whatever they're calling it. >> it is 56 thousand i believe thank you commissioner swig. >> it got over 60. >> i believe okay. >> all right. we'll take rebuttal from the entertainment commission. >> .

>> again jocelyn kane from the entertainment commission i was going to ceded any time rile reiterate we're asking you to deny the appeal you're correct crowd is an issue we fully intend as adams said to work with the police department and expect the security guard to do their job security is what we look to primarily with place of entertainment to manager their crowd keep dot ratios and we the entertainment commission can change that ratio to require for security if we feel they're not able to manage crowd noise upon exit of an event which ambient

noise is at its lowest we can do that and i'll welcome you to my life this opens and people come in they'll come to me we're prepared for those consequences so with that, chris do you want to take allocate minute. >> good evening chair and members i manage the environmental impact i want to talk about the security of the project as other mentioned ocii is involved with our own report by the entertainment commission which ceqa terms acted in the responsible agency and responsible agencies are required to consider the environmental analysis in the

final documents sifted /* certified it is on the topic about noise of operations crowd noise dispetersburg from events and traffic and transportation in the eir and with respect to that analysis i think most of it was covered i want to clarify a couple of things i got questions about the ambient noise were taken of a for the ceqa analysis and so a.m. binlt twenty-four hour and short time 15 manipulate measurement data collected no 2014 and 2015 in the project area a number of sites relate to nearby

repertoires those are the ambient noise measures used in the eir for the noise to increase the amount bitten and i have to interpret you, sir if commissioner fung would like to ask questions. >> i have a question. >> the i've you led the eir. >> i managed many of the technical team. >> the mitigations that were development occurred through that process an extensive process the in general eir mitigations

don't always provide a lot of specifics those usually come if conditions on projects and the question i have is that when i look at the various approvals from ocii and mta, from entertainment they don't have the level of specifics conditions i would normally equality with such a large and complex project. >> so i won't attempt to speak to the general proposition of mitigation only focus on what we did for this environmental impact report and specifically to noise there are a couple of noise mitigation manufacture in the eir so i'll refrain from

reading them you can find in on page 3 dash 131 in the eir but they are specific and they enforce specific standards those mitigation measures are also included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that was adopted by ocii and is included as a condition of approval for the project base so there are clear detailed and enforceable noise impacts as well as extensive and very specific mitigation measures addressing traffic and the other points. >> i have one other point to clarify if anyone has a question about the traffic impacts of the

po events. >> would you like to tell us about the traffic impacts. >> one quick graphic on the overhead the one on the right that is of particular interest to this discussion the concern was raised about the significant unavoidable impacts as evidence of the order whether posted event if the arena posted event overseeing significant and unavoidable in traffic were overwhelms for the arrivals for the weekend t n t post event that happens in the latest everybody no significant unavoidable traffic incidents that is outside of the evening

commute you hour we have two intersections that failed post event and those two intersections are hone in the graphic on the black on fifth and bryant their more than a mile if the center we believe that is actually evidence that post events traffic dispercent quickly without having significant details within the muni of the arena i want to clarify that. >> do you have a lot of e in the intersections. >> the only intersection on the right that are failing we have a significant impact they can't be mitigate are the two i mentioned. >> sore since you have that do you have events when at&t and the new arena are in effect.

>> it is extensively studied it is you know you're worst case scenario of the transportation analyze it is represented with the worst case scenario. >> off that itself representative of at&t and the arena. >> there are very few offer lapsing late disperils frsals f at&t so. >> i do have an opinion.

>> the it is interesting how everyone talks about it is as a police code issue but that you correlate all the main criteria and components of these that relates to both planning and design issues and for such a project which most of us except for that the very expensive mrufld attorneys maybe some of us worked on the complexity quite real i don't see is the extensive amount of

controls that could have been written on top of that there to be safe that is what bothers me some of the things that were brought up on multiple briefs are things i accept as not our purview and not discuss an opinion as to whether the zone was correct i'm not anyway, i think that i would expected that through all the entities that there would have been much more strenuous conditions that relate to those components of the police code that relates to not only the enjoyment of the

facility but for the people around them i don't quite see it i'm not saying it is not but depending on the good neighbor policy yes interests mitigations that relate to that but it bothers me the noise plan is only 6 items i don't see that match the complexity of this project. >> go ahead. >> we can wonder down the aisle. >> maybe. >> i'll start. >> i understand this is regarding the place of entertainment permit and also that it is based on the police

code and one of the reasons he asked the question of what the motorbike alliance was i'd like to have seen real bodies and people here indicating their likes and dislikes rather than that appears to me as just being a business entity situation i do feel for the nurses that come before us i also live in the sunset my daughter start off at she was diagnosed with a symptom and spent the better part at usf i have my uncolonel different for cancer and my sons

is at the new facility as well given the fact that during my chemical therapy he noticed san francisco we not only have usf but we have stanford two of the highest rated medical facilities in the country maybe the world i noticed when i was getting my chemical therapy he felt of itself the people were coming from texas and alabama and arena around the world i live in the sunset and had to go to the campus i felt privileged and honored to have the facilities i understand the plight it maybe hazardous and dangerous to get

to the new hospital due to the fact that the traffic occurs but at the same time i've noticed that three years ago you could tell your friend you'll meet them for lunch takes 20 minutes no longer that is just specific we have 8 hundred and 50 thousand people in san francisco and if and when this around arena gets done we'll add 10 percent to that i don't feel given the perimeters as we're looking at it today, i honestly building that the entertainment commission didn't error in issuing this permit i understand my fellow commissioners concerns he felt it was a lot of the information i gathered was based on other information at the same

time i've been it two arenas in oakland and at&t and candle stick at&t and candle stick have larger larger venues more people drove you're getting to a point in san francisco less people are driving i think that - this was a volume of information i mean this is as someone mentioned the america's cup are the two largest events in the 3 plus years i've been here that encompass my weekends up to today, i'm of the belief that the permit was issued without error. >> i looked at - i think one

key point is that - i think the standard of how high you set the bar has to be a realistic standard award to this arena comply to health and zoning and fire and safety requirement i'm satisfied

it would i haven't heard anything that goes against that a security plan is something that i think the judging the professionalism of the sponsors their experience in doing it the care that the city of san francisco will take as they do every single home game and concert at the at&t park, etc. i'm comfortable with the security plan will be viable and certainly in the protection of both neighborhoods and the constituents at the arena at at&t park or the pacific auditorium for that matter the issue of dusts and odor, etc. the noise is i think tonight is

our biggest issue the diverse difference i have to compliment the giants and in the way they manage their business 42 thousand people and a lot of noise 1/3rd of that far less than that less than it is indoors the issue of managing the ins and outs will there is problems if the warriors win a challenging maybe a problem with noise after the championship game i see that but not to disruptive the neighborhood i think that noise sensitive is

important but an indoor event i'm comfortable with the current plan in that and in the spirits of what the entertainment commission has based their judgment on i've made my decision. >> would you like to make a motion. >> can i add a few words. >> it's been critical scrutinized almost went blind reading the eir and is responses but good to see all of it i feel that the bigger the project the more colonel scrutinized we're maybe it sounds like an issue in the beginning and nobody pay

attentions so i think that between the requirements of code that is forced to live up to not to exceed appropriate standards the plans meets those and you know, i guess to put it in slightly different terms innocent until proven guilty the documents suggests that their make every effort to comply with every situation with the significant impacts that can't be mitigate every project has those we wouldn't build anything that is a barrier to a prong in town and again, it motivates them to mitigate to the further extent possible with that, i'll be prepared to deny the appeal

and accept the permit and i would i'm not quite getting the motion but propose we include those proposed findings we're suggested by the proponents the permit holders was referred to as exhibit h in the mission in addition to the other findings to make - >> i'm not in agreement with that at all you know the they've told us in no uncertain terms we don't even have certain controls over things and some of that is stated in they're proposed finding automotive i'm not sure i follow you. >> as an example in their briefs ty've

indicated that the determination on zone is not one our purview and repeated in the finding. >> it says right here we are our thing to make sure the property complies with the zoning as well it says it in the brief in both peeps as well the sponsor. >> i disagree. >> i brought up mr. morales. >> we need to make the finding with the treatment priority. >> you have to make finding it comprises with those 4. >> i believe they spell out. >> the permit must be grant if

it didn't comply with health and fire safety requirements of the law i thought state of california or in the city and county of san francisco applicable to the business. >> so if i can make a suggestion on the property could have regarding the - a-1 a on exhibit h the event center by the agency with the authority to make the considerations i don't think we have that sounds like it is you're concern you don't have to make that finding in order to find the project is consistent with the zoning requirement you could say that ocii is tasked with determining

if so is consistent and conclude sound like you have that finding is sponsored by substantial evidence you've labored through on the weekend and accept that finding on that basis defer to ocii finding. >> i'm comfortable with that. >> so. >> what you, you reasoning towards commissioner fung. >> i've read that i didn't find that acceptable. >> well, i building we need to make some finding with the provisions of the police code. >> that's correct. >> so i think we need a draft.

>> the question whether in is something else it is acceptable to commissioner fung or not find the project meets the police code. >> i believe that the it doesn't require a simple majority. >> to uphold the permit 3 commissioners is sufficient. >> okay. everybody has a different opinion that's all right. my opinion is different i did not think i disagree with some of the verbiage in the finding that's okay. >> madam president. >> move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit and incorporate the draft environmental findings as well as finding that support the requirement of the police code. >> so are you then proposing

that this board adopt as you suggested exhibit h with the amendment. >> with the amendment you suggested regarding ocii. >> okay do you want to read that amendment to make sure they're on the on the same page. >> to strike the language under exhibit h and replace that with language that says appendixes it the agency tasked with determining if the project is consistent and the boards accepts ocii finding on that determination. >> i understood you to say you included the support amy michael. >> repeat that you conclude from the support by substantial evidence to this board. >> and you're so well-spoken.

>> i try. >> phalanges to those finding in exhibited h that was amend our proposing that the boards include the draft environmental finding for this that is been sdrabd to the board and not. >> read into the record but i don't know if the city attorney wants to staying say it is necessary or if the board members you're happy has everyone reviewed the proposed draft finding okay. >> and they've been labeled to you want to make sure everyone is contrary. >> it's the document it is entitled the draft finding for the said distribution to the board members. >> it was part of my eye exam.

>> then we have a motion by the president as stated on that motion commissioner fung no commissioner vice president honda. >> and commissioner swig. >> so with the vote of 3 to one with one absent that motion carries yes. >> we're break. >> welcome back to the wednesday, december 9, 2015, of the intrvlz we're now on item number 8 i'm sorry item 9 item 8 is reschedule to january 27th kathy represent verse the department of building inspection with planning department approval property at 1616 a eir religious protesting

the issue of jan and ann murphy with the horizon remodel of kitchen and bathroom and bedroom and 3 dwelling units remain is start with the appellant you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> thank you sxd and commissioners i'll kathy the appellant this appeal concerns did expansion of a non-common units of a flat building without a permit the planning department allowed the appellant to change it by filling a notice of designated

restrictions question the non-restricted conforming story about are indesisted by installed a sliding glass window and extending out the deck about 10 feet from the breed bedroom wall 2 that feet planning code prohibits the indication of the novrn conforming use of structure occupied by such use and recognized the decks are designed for outside living and he interpretation recognizes that noise maybe a non-conforming use and internal alterations are used for the dwelling don't extend beyond the building envelope is and extend beyond the envelope if not

habitable space not with the features the adjacent building as the residential design and none of the adjacent buildings what accommodate the chairs and tables with the - also the board should oppose the designated northridge conform use not able to be endangered as well as non-conforming use as the zoning administrator interpretation of the section staff said the designation will allow to be moved to the ground floor level by applying for another restriction in addition the planning department - the planning department approved a new wall along the property line under violation of the block

that requires work alteration that requires a review by the planning department that is broader a 311 notice at the commission everything was setback 5 feet from the property line here's the planning approval foreclose the property line construction on the property line and didn't show the height of the wall on that sheet and here's a notation they can route any changes to the materials or window locations to the planning department for reapproval those were approved by the department didn't knee with the requires the thirty inches or 2 1/2 feet so a firewall will be having be at all no obstruction because it studies the second floor of

occupancy 10 feet an architect will explain the building code didn't - as to an 8 foot wall that means behind all the construction can be replaced on the addition by using a smaller window than the one that explicit comply with the other one and 10 inches beyond the pop out where the ground level wall meets the ground shows the murray point at the plan told me i polled they were murray 12 feet from the second story and the extension limited to the over harangue to mitigate the portion of the adjacent building and an are internal stair that

connected the unit have been left to the plan it was overruled after that the plans changed the area where it was to be for the storage above with the unauthorized modification should be restored not state in any application and would a candidate a continue it condition that will be misread to circumvent and the manufacturing explicit reside in the tenant a new tenants moved and the architect will discuss some technical points if i may. >> good evening. i'm jeanette an architect over the fall i reviewed the plans in in question the one hour prime minister didn't comply with the

building permit for a firewall for a steps building exhibit u that requires the vertical continuity should extend to a determination are termination point above the lower roof level not a permitted obstruction into the rear yard under the planning code section because it will steady the 10 foot height the technical keys he say the building code didn't allow it to protect the window wall the extension and requires and 12 and a half foot continuous firewall the drawing sheet a-32 deceive the 8 foot wall is marked with a doted line that usually means the wall is behind the window unless note otherwise that was

not it didn't definitely show a wall on the property line and that will be 8 foot tall the larger sliding window if comply with the allowable building code sections ensue if it is reduced in size to 25 percent of the exterior wall all the fire rated construction can be places on the exterior wall the tension extension so not needing the extra firewall. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening. >> commissioner president lazarus and members of the board

of appeals. >> my name is jim murphy i'm the property owner an iris avenue my wife and i moved into the property 9 nature years ago and had 3 lovely children we're excited about we've needed this modest remold to k3450789 our family there is a saying not in my backyard this quite frankly is my next door saying not in you're backyard this modest remold we started 2 years ago a preapplication meeting kathy was the only immediate neighbor and we attended that meeting in opposition and the only immediate neighbor and someone on our block is attended the police station on december 11,

2014, we've sense heard things from the lowell heats i have to tell you most folks in our association are completely unaware or like to stay out of that she's a next door and the vice president of our association but i'll let that will all to defer to the aenth a reasonable degree of medical probability every single architect to answer the technical questions and i'll be available for questions at any point thank you. >> good-bye architect this project was a very small remold very modest taegs addition what a family with 3 kids we could have gone lighter and smaller my clooiz client wanted to have a

remold and everything was approved by the planning department and the planning commission there's everything is within the zoning boundary the wall didn't extend beyond 8 yard within the envelope i'm not sure why we referring telephone foot 6 and higher scott sanchez can attest to the restrictions i'll be happy to answer any questions for more detailed questions a small modest remodel that didn't have impact on my client other than to maintain their place in san francisco. >> mr. sanchez. >> i usually don't see you bring up big paperwork this is a

lot seeing mr. duffy and i and award to the permit the property in rh2 that permits the two zoning and under the plan from 2014 the discretionary review was heard by planning commission 2014 and staff recommended approval the project the planning commission took dr and had a connecting stair removed from the plan after the review and approved by the planning commission the project went through the normal process reviewed by the agencies there were arising by the project sponsor two responses from the department of building inspection so the interior no longer is no there are in the planning commission decisions has been respected i know the

permit holder has concerned about the installation sometime in the future upstairs that was not part of the commissions decide they wanted some of it removed but there is it is a recession that will violate the commissions restrictions that's before you additionally those changes relayed to the firewall and the 8 foot firewall along the property that is code enforcement code compliant is not a new permit noting no violations that is before you on appeal that has gone to the discretionary review process the change will not in and of itself trigger any new notice no new notice provided at a point not

required it is completely commissioner president vietor and encroaches that 12 foot measurement from the specifically building wall but measured from the 45 percent line in the case so measured from that required rear yard line and so you'll see it code compliant we have roishdz this the alone there is a permit from the early 70s that authorizes it as a prebuilding 3 in a building prior to 1960 and 78 zoned rh3 no issues related to that you

can designate our non-common unit the project sponsor makes that choice all legal units with a non-conforming units that is restricted this is the restricted unit while it can be moved around the building in the future not increased in size so the practicality of that seems i don't think that is likely to happen again something the code allows but can increase from what is noted on the approval already. >> and again, i think that is pretty clear relatively a modest project we see these all the time it has an encroachment

allowed to have an encroachment in the required rear yard actually not even maximizing that their savings account the deck from the appellants property and the building itself was aged away and the residents ruffled this and to be compliant with the guidelines it is compliant with the guidelines and we respectfully request you uphold the dr request on this application. >> mr. sanchez i can't find it but the indecision discussion about merging the unit not merging the units. >> this allows 3 units the applicant thought to do a merger not likely to be approved they maintained that third unit. >> i see that is where is

stands autopsy just to be clear the designation of one of the unit is non-conforming is in terms of that being the third unit as a rh2 not in terms of the stoengs over the rear yard or. >> that's correct in this case i mean, i know the appellant raised the issues about the existing building indented e.r. stoned or extends into the envelope i see an existing non- complying building and issues of non-common use not per say non-common they're allowed in the mixed use district what is non-conform is the density so that is the aspect of that that is non-conforming we have routing allowed unknown

conforming units to have decks that is not non-dense first degree they'll have a open space in the middle to i'm available to answer any questions. >> you said this is an modest improvement how much bulk will they go to be completely compliant excuse me. >> with the building only 3 stories to add a fourth floor or at the rear a pop out but 5 foot setback so that would have bought that in from the northern side to come a little bit further and into the required rear yard but mainly the main difference would have been - >> this is much smaller and the other question i have the

appellant mentioned the firewall that exceeds the height can you talk about i'll left inspector duffy talk about that. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi building permit is a second permit approved by the planning department plan check staff by the work described and apart if the items that were brought up by the appellant architect i couldn't understand what issue i couldn't find the sliding door on the property line i wouldn't on the property line wall i'm

not sure it is seemed a 45 degree angle to the property line that is not in the rail on the property line wall but i'm not clear what that matter south-southwest the height of the wall and maybe someone has questions we can elaborate but we see those property lines all the time and extend past the upper part thirty inches before the roofline for the parapet but it is on the height issue i'm clear on the what if rule. >> we'll hear rebuttal. >> ebt to address it if they use the overhead and correlate that with the drawings.

>> any public comment on this item please step forward. >> two minutes. >> i'm bobby good evening, commissioners and commissioner president lazarus i'm not i'm on my private the time not paid and concerned about losing a rent-controlled unit and the likelihood of the merger you know mr. sanchez is very committee and accurate on that the likelihood a merger from the stairway i spoke at the planning commission on behalf of the tenants unit on december 11th and the planning commission or the did project sponsor to remove the stair it was clear from the plans from their comments that the commissioners building the stairway wouldn't,

in fact, merge the two units even though the project sponsor withdrew his application the project sponsor harassed redesignated the area to which the stairway a not part of ground floor part time that was part of the ground floor studio apartment in the plans that were before the planning commission since the project sponsor is designating this approximately, one and 10 foot area as storage for the times that appears a condition is created that can and likely would be misused to place a new stairway while claiming not part of ground floor apartment the storage creates the danger for the apartment will be destroyed i strongly support the request to return the storage as part of

the ground floor apartment to preventive the project sponsor if circumventing that defor a second merger not - in fact, the commission will approve the project with the stairway so that the reset designation as part of ground floor ground level apartment is not effected thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is jerold from the responding community association our organization is the first of the remove removal it will institute a non-designated second story and it shouldn't have an approval of a second story unit having a non-conforming unit on

the lot staff stayed a non-conforming unit is suppose to be changed to a new envelope and planning code section states that a non-conforming use in any structure occupied by such use shall not be enlarged or extended or moved to another location the zoning administrator interpretation of section says a prohibition shall not employing apply to the relocation providing it occupies the same area and not dense if i did in some other way it states a structure occupied by the north korea conforming use shall not be reconstructed or alternated except that 3 authorization shall be permitted for any portion of the structure that will not therefore be occupied by the non-restricted

conform use providing the non-conforming use is not moved to another location by moving a non-conforming unit from the 5 hundred and 5 square feet unit to the 13 hundred second story unit occupied by a greater area and running the non-conforming intensifies the use and 45 rear yard with the second deck now there is a small bathroom extend spot 45 percent ground floor and another of the plans will be a larger extension please not allow the new wall on the property line and please deny the permit. >> are you a neighbor of the

perspective project. >> not a direct neighbor. >> you live within that. >> i'm in the richmond district. >> okay. >> we're concerned about code. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> didn't go my name is m j thomas i'm a residents of lowell hooefrths heights he own my home since 1998 and lived in san francisco all my life the building scale at mid block open space the residential design state design the height and depth of the building to be

compatible to the middle scale provide by the planning code building capitalizations into the rear yard maybe be appropriate if they are uncharacteristicly deep or at all detainee on the context of the other buildings the begin of the mid block open space though the planning code establishes the maximum building envelope by dictating setbacks and heights the building must be compatible with the form of surrounding building unquote both the decks and the property line wall are not compatible with the existing building scale the project is opposed by the many neighbors 3 neighbors who live who's gardens abut the

properties and they live on coming down the pike street mr. and mrs. chin and others that are at work and mr. and mrs. she's ill and couldn't attend and many other neighbors as the folks said in they're the 200 and 15 square feet deck can accommodate tables and chairs a deck of this large size brings noise into the mid block open space which is now character ids i i's by. >> your time is up. >> is there any additional public comment you have 3 minutes of rebuttal.

>> to answer mr. duffy's question i have the code here i'll put it down here if you can't see it i'll be glad to hand it to you and read it. >> this is what was appointed by technical codes on several occasions related to this project. >> basically what is says step building when a firewall serves as an exterior wall with different roof levels such walls should terminate not epilepsy thirty inches providing a above the lower roof not less than fire resistance with the oscar

pistorius protected by the fire sectors and not less than three-quarters here's what we have going. >> so this is the right here is the firewall they've put up and what happened they kept it at 8 feet height the rooftop is at 10 feet you've got to go thirty inches about that i do this all the time this is specifically what we told me at technical codes they've got an 8 foot protecting the windows is not enough it's got to be the same if? the firewall instead of the firewall alo the face of the building protect it within 5 to 10 feet of the property line and that means that this whole

diagonal wall there can be a window but not less than 25 percent and technical codes helped me to make sure that is correct either a firewall telephone foot plus or a firewall with an opening no more than 25 percent what will happen is this will have to change an inspector will catch it in the field that 12 inch height is above the planning code requirement and notices to everyone again so there's a problem here. >> so the problem is their letting them intensify in the story and the conforming story is only entitled to one exhibit x the non-conforming was moved

with the density may not extended the envelope from 2013 so the deck does so it gets an extension off the deck so no encroachment only designated the second floor not lout to go beyond. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> this is a 3 unit building with one hour construction so our wall we're addressing that are look at the printout so all the waltz with one hour construction in addition the entire addition the sprinkler is fire protection the property line wall up to 8 feet is not

protecting the building all the references they're saying the 10 feet that this 8 foot wall protects the windows and all the building construction is one hour and fully sprirlgd our inspector will confirm that. >> with our final two minutes to address a couple of things commissioner president lazarus. >> brought up the issues of dwelling units it was my wife's and my intent to merge it was zoned and two dwelling units that was our initial intention and once we found out that was not the likelihood so the dwelling merger after 10 years

trying to take away rental unit this is ridiculous and our upstairs neighbors a name family of four we occupy one building and the appellant has the exact same involuntary it is hypocritical i'm sorry to say a couple of other things i wanted to share around noise an issue of noise i also there 10 years no noise complaints ever we have a deck only trying to have a no noise complanlts and be a common sense good neighborhood a lot of information about fire and fire code my understanding i islander all the things we have to bring building up to get our building up to code better materials and better quality in all things we're a reduction

housing stock we want the ability to bring this up to code that any homeowners thank you on behalf of my family wife marie and t y and my new son we wanted this done and when we had our third child to welcome the family we haven't gotten out of the site permit phase i realize that all the city and county resources that went both that. >> mr. murray are you living there now. >> yes. it is my home over the last few months they talked about the residence i have a family and friend staying there i am taking care of my mother she passed away and quite frankly other members of our

communities are aware of that frankly shocked she'll bring up a personal nature no tenants and quite frankly it is was a good personal situation for him when we moved in. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll by the time let joe talk about the issues two other points for all things 2012 and 2013 the magical dates that was the division that allows for the extension that allows them to be larger within the building envelope and in this case they're not keep that in mind the exxon conforming that provision didn't apply so separately on the exterior the issues verse the potential stairs making that part of the

dwelling unit i i mean, we wouldn't oppose against the law to incorporate that into the lower units the concern their ad stairs what does it matter i don't see how it effects the overall i don't think that matters if it is storage or part of the unit no violation has been committed their code enforcement and ask you respectfully uphold the permit i'll let you do not talk about the permipermit issues. >> we have would opinions in dbi the plan checker approved that i don't know they were not

able to get awe held that that is the avenue for her i intend to go with the architect that is 4 feet away from the property line it look okay to with me when you go to planning code open up and find something maybe but you know worst case scenario if this is approved attendant it is still not too late this is a little bit of an issue they'll have do a revision i'll be happy to to bring that back to dbi and i'm under the understanding that eliminates the fire resistance not on directly you know just in

line with the property line so there is some code seconds in there i can't find them on the ipad but expectations when you are looking at an angle to the property line. >> the other thing that the project sponsor are mentioned because of the 3 unit building that the envelope is that at this point one hour rates and fully sprirld. >> there's a lot of code when you throw in the sprirldz. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the primary issue is the extension and the deck i'd rather we dealt with the issue instead of the technical issues

that are monitored and enforced by the building inspection as far as the concerns related to the ground floor expectation and the deck he find both are setback from this does it is a modest expansion and the argument on the mid block open space is not compelling for me. >> no other discussions. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis it is code compliant. >> on that motion. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> and commissioner swig. >> that motion carries and we'll monarch to the