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 post 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 they'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 along 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 the 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 last item on the calendar verse the planning commission and on howard street appealing the issuance to mark sanchez of compliance and request to construct a 20 story foot over the basement up to one and 33 dwelling units and approximately 4 thousand 8 hundred square feet of ground floor commercial space with the exception for rear yard from the code section and wind current and height and bulk limits

this is motion now and then we'll start with the appellant. >> before you start mr. osgood we didn't receive the brief from mrs. osgood. >> can we speed limit it. >> we don't have time now. >> i'd like to get it on the record. >> it wasn't submitted on time. >> confusion about the combination of two appeals there is two appeals our understanding that will be heard together then we missed the deadline can you just leave them here. >> mr. osgood in the board doesn't accept it leaving that

there will not get it into the record. >> not many commenters. >> we've had two minutes this entire evening. >> i respectfully ask the board grant that appeal and modify the compliance pursuant to the planning code with the exceptions regarding the rear yard and the tower exception and the ground floor wind current. >> the rear yard exception is not afforded in the sufficient step down appropriate to scale consistent with the buildings and waterfront the commission authorized the bulk limit based on the permit holder square footage thus failed to take into consideration the overall building design as the code.

>> the project doesn't meet the threshold requirement for the upper tower due to the impacts on the city view and increases shadows on public school buildings that sounds a lawyer so i'll put my neighborhood residents hat on its been a resident in the neighborhoodit been a resident in the neighborhood been a resident in the neighborhood been a resident in the neighborhood for 25 years the people made a career at the polling places not oversized places phenomenon the waterfront that project violates the plan

regulations calling for building to step down and violates the urban design and cause for the low building on the waterfront the i found that it will cast significant studios an rincon park most days throughout the year and caused traffic problems that can't be might be this shouldn't be mitigated and follow the rules let's be clear about the height i think you'll hear a lot of numbers about that the site is zoned 200 f a 200 descend height just to be clear this building is 200 and 40 feet high can i have the screen.

>> there are 200 and 40 feet that that's a whooping 20 percent over the height limit half of it is called screening you know how height for screening property height with the air conditioning putting a fence that was totally reasonable they didn't want that fence counted as building height the process is abused for one thing the so-called screening is up two stories out of control and their expending the buildings for exterior walls 20 feet so their covering more mechanic equipment please stop that give away the other abuse of height is the extra 10 percent of supposedly everybody

gives that's nonsense it is 10 percent adding to the cylinderness of the building what is that - adds to the slenderness of building and certainly not megan extra height

not making that interesting if you think that does we'll to hear you say that adds to the slenderness of building or makes it interesting as far as the raider that requires a 25 percent rear yard this is a good view the neighborhood the garage on the lower right the exceptions for rear yard can only be grand if so there stuff air and light and continent with the go neighboring building this project does neither first of all, in their calling the advisory committee the rear yard and this is george the facing of embarcadero the real rear yard is to the side where the open

space is most seriously needed this is the developers artwork on the left side how extremely close this project to the office building directly behind that that 25 percent rear yard a needed and shows how bulky the building would be thank you. >> okay hear if the motion holder now. >> you look familiar where have i seen you before. >> canned minimal where. >> good evening commissioners and members mary the council for the 75 howard project we are

respectfully ask the board uphold the section 409 for the housing project and reject this appeal i will share with my time with the project architect the standard review the planning commission is so forth that the commission approval can only be overturned if you find it erred in the interpretation of the law the section so forth the applicable applications of the law to the fact and their reasoning including the obtains in each instance the law was correct and applied to the fact and fully reasoned the appellant fundamentally dangerous with the commission as you've heard that

disagreement explicit meet the standard of review they therefore this appeal should be rejected the good afternoon. welcome it is in the project area and as stated in the 200 height and bulk for the record this transit center doesn't receive a health as a consequence thought it pace special fees not made by the projects out outside the area and transportation street impact fees and will pay into the community facility to support the new center the designation has been the high classification for many years the f district as you may know it is classification that is in the planning code since the mid 80s and qualify for an upper tower

the upper tower is granted through the process through 309 and the upper estimation to building the design qualified under the code their articulate the reasoning the upper tower improved the appearance skyline they pay attention to the shadow on rincon park that was an - the decision was correct on the interpretations of the law and the reasoning demonstrates this commission didn't abuse discretion if i could have the

screen the image before you is the site plan in its context i'll not give you an offering but speak to the issues that mr. osgood is referenced this is a consistent pattern the rear yard exceptions are sdrshd as allowable when not a pattern of mid block open space as you can see open space and generally distributed to the size of the buildings and between not in an essential block the appellants brief specifically mentioned the building is not setback from the embarcadero relative to other towers facts or otherwise, it is setback hundred feet and our tower that one plus between our site and the embarcadero is a right away for parcel and not

the city the rear yard variance can be granted when light and air are preserved the height areas require that exception they face south into an open space that is occupied by a regularly shaped parking lot and it is loaded headed by the gap it is unlivable the building would be developed that is one and 20 feet to the roof it is significantly lower than the roofs of the neighboring buildings and electricities to the skyline it slopes down towards the waterfront the use of upper tower expectation and the bulk exceptions does contribute to a better design we've worked closely with the planning department staff and commission the diagram illustrate the bulk envelope at

the middle the two hundred plus and the project the diagram shades the - in ground level the significantly less than bulk over 10 percent smaller then the bulk to achieve them to introduce plots bringing open space it out to the perimeter and shaded in orange the setbacks on each side of the building and further we working closely with planning department staff to modulate the somewhat awkward zoning the site and lowering the base significantly and breaking down the mass of those to smaller pieces we think are consistent with the neighborhood in doing so it casts shadows affordable unit

rincon park it is analyzed in great detail the yellow chart bar shows the shadow on recidivism and the a dictate blue is new shadow this project is sitting down revised in skefrnz of shadow and casts 1/3rd as the project proposed the exception also indicate that light and air should not be further effected to adjacent building this left fully building combine and the fact that more windows are preserved finally the appellants brief states the materials of building with inconsistent with the neighborhood i'll ask you to look at the renderings they're made of metal and glass and stone and brick the stone and glass are there i'll be happy to

answer any questions thank you very much. >> could you point out where the property line is. >> if i have the screen up the red outline is the property line so the project is the corner side in unusual way steward dead-ends this is spear to the west a mid block exterior block line we are required interest no rear yard required on interior lot like line between two buildings. >> who owned the property to the south. >> the property to the ceda the odd shaped is the same ownership to the west and the building further to the south is in the gap.

>> actually mary murphy it is the gap owns part of it when the gap site came along cut. >> you want to point out towards the site. >> that's okay. >> anyways part of that kind of spear street the first part owned by the gap an easement it serves the spear street parking lot and the below grade so kind of cuts at a weird angle. >> is it respected by that lot line. >> there's diagonal line. >> okay mr. sanchez.

>> thank you scott sanchez planning department apologizes if this is a little bit more scattered but happening the appeal brief to workout but respond to the comments on the appellants testimony heard by the planning commission heard an authorization and grant it was core related variance and will be before you in january some issues were raised regarding the rear yard and the height it was first to the height this is a 200 height limit under the planning code under section they are allowed in the asphalt to make certain pvgd are documented in the

motion here and have to thank tina changing who is available to answer questions i'm not sure i'm not been able to answer if so something that is allowed by the code no give a ways that was something that was allowed going back to the downtown plan in 1985 a process that someone what avail themselves but the entitlement to increase the height limit the project complies with the height limit and the planning code that allows them and additionally the additional height to the screening is the feature we do you know require gene we want those top features necessary for the operation of the building to be properly screened and did planning code has that that is code enforcement with that as well

and the rear yard is documented it is somewhat of a unique lot shape and the given the history we did find the planning commission find that was properly grand in terms of let's go back to the height and height exception staff in analyzing that justify the height increased height look at what a completely otherwise code enforcement ultimate they've madam out the envelope and this results in a bulkier building what is done the increase in height does official in the design threshold and the demonstration and commission results in a slimmer building something with code enforcement the massing would have been

bigger so what they're able to do drop the lesson gait the upper tower by approving it it complies with the relative tower separation requirement and concerns and questions raised about shadows is if cast any new shadow on a park under the jurisdiction of rec and park that is prop k it is compliance the concerns raised about the impacts of rincon park it is has a bearing on that in analyzing the project scenarios as part avenue environmental impact report they found you'll have to lower it to approximately feet so the additional 20 feet is not a significant impact shadow on rincon park i think those are

the most of points i wanted to raise and i'm available to answer any questions you have. >> 10 percent allowance that makes it 220 was it 240. >> under the planning code the height limit is 200 feet just even if they didn't get the 20 feet but go to the 20 feet for mechanic commit. >> so 20/20 and under the first 20 and so they got the exception for the 20 and additional for the with screening. >> but he mentioned in his oral statement he indicated the front the thought property on the north side that was officially from the property. >> on the waterfront side.

>> so does that make a difference the rear yard is on the right side. >> they're allowed to choose their foreman for tax purposes and we'll override if it is inconsistent with the patterns the election they made is perfectly compliant. >> so it is on one side ass. >> the front of the building for purposes of the yard and call the front of the building for about purposes of the height so it allows for flexibility and where the property is on particularly on the corner lot. >> so thairl they'll get the benefit the bulb that's where

st. peter street ends and the last question how did they account that building frontage is similar to the frontage that was in the current build out the project sponsor poitsd the last brick and steel i don't see much steel in they're building. >> are you speaking in terms of the design and materials. >> planning department staff found an appropriate design. >> that's what i'm trying to consider that you look at the frontage the project sponsor actually brought affordability it didn't look like the rest of the frontage. >> right. >> speaking to oh, that it is not compatible to other parts of

neighborhood and trying to keep them similar to here on behalf of the appellant more directly involved in the design comments so i'll let my colleague. >> staff is not a replication of the materiality we're looking at the mapping i think the materials that the project sponsor proposed is consistent with the character of the overall district explicit mean because the gap building is not conducted with brick and glass and other materials the overall design for example, the lower tower the height of the lower tower a - the overall mapping was found to step down from the larger downtown corridor for these reason and totality we found the design is in keeping

with the character. >> are you kidding me the height pardon i look at through this building this is the most non-san francisco building i've seen in my life i can't believe what i heard this comes close to the lonts of the gap building or the blockingness i work in the area a few blocks way there is brick construction by maryland it is metabolic i didn't it is in t in the warehouses area i can't believe i'm hearing that i can't you know you look mission street to the traditional waterfront building and finally the what

are the properties the salesforce is and lanceing that is that building is more in characterization which is completely out of character more in character than that building no relationship to the hills tower and the gap building and the relationship to the original gap building i'm appalled i think i should do public comment and i'm so appalled normally what happens to public comment i can't i'm hearing that and can't believe any of that. >> i'm sorry. >> it is 10 minutes to 10. >> there is a differentiation between replicating and having a building who's massing and overall design a out of

character. >> i understand that the replication that's not what we are asking but at this point questions gentlemen. >> yes. i'm not appalled it looks extremely different than the project sponsor put to it i'm trying to determine what makes the decision it can be completely different from the neighborhood is it substantive. >> there are a number of controls throughout the city and certain district in the city in historic neighborhood tenderloin for example, that very specific standards in terms of what materials are required. >> what materials in this district not a set standard set of materials that are required and it went through multiple

rounds rounds the urban design review and it followed the process we typically bring projects through with the staff they overall found it was in keeping with the neighborhood character not replicating and appreciate the differences but it would be out of character i would say. >> you're the architect. >> well, i don't know everybody has an opinion; right? >> where you, you involved in the design process of which that involved. >> i was fairly new to the project i can't say there for the entire history. >> my questions relate to some of the expectations were

alternative studies done nothing in the documentation that the wind comfort level you said that exceeded it we don't know what the potential studies were done i'm sure that planning made them do studies. >> i'm sure there the irs studies they were exhausted telling me about that. >> the project person has a better history. >>. i'm sorry. >> mary whether they were involved >> i personally was not i reviewed that there was a three hundred and 48 variant received and other and the current project proposed they had to go to the same analysis and the

impacts including shadow and miles an hour. >> i can't specimen specifically but that analysis >> i'll answer that question as a side question for the da da are two yards available. >> can i tell you one there is an act of - i don't know the sustainability levels but there are yards on the market a quick response. >> what's the pdr transfer the development right. >> yeah. so it allows someone to develop at the base their buying conduit developments that are rather than the historic prompt building up and being demolished sell off their rights to someone else but in regards to the winds? an issue almost

every project downtown has wind requirement if you don't make that perfect you'll need that exception they're making things better but not perfect but to clarify but overall the project is documented in the internal revenue it did improve but not made it perfect. >> we'll take public comment now people that are interested in speaking you'll have two minutes to speak. >> good evening. i'm reed a long time residents the area in which this project is located and i think that is the project

before you is not a quote distinctly better designed for the neighborhood with the exceptions that are requested from that board that is one of the standards that must be met for the exceptions to be previewed and look at the depictions you've seen this evening as well the material that has been presented it demonstrates that the project does not meet the standard as to the increased height it increases the already significant shadows on rincon park that were demonstrated in the commissions finding and the height effects the light and views of the surround buildings and certainly didn't add to the slenderness of the building has been contempt on and that was

even commented on by the project sponsor they supposedly with this there's height adding to the slenderness i think that is clear under the depiction you've seen you don't any slenderness ♪ project, and, secondly, no significant facts at the higher elevation like it was said they are basking the same setback as the embarcadero at the building i live this is simply not true excuse me. if you look at the plat or the front line of all those buildings all in a line 7 floor on the gap and hills plaza they're significant setbacks none here these and all the rebates that have been presented to you it is

okay 0 deny the requested exceptionst0 deny the requested exceptionso0 deny the requested exceptions deny the requested exceptions >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for allowing me to speak yeah. my objections are continent the material to me is it is certainly you know a modern looking building i think our neighborhood with the use of brick and stone and other materials that is yeah that is a great look my biggest objection the previous speaker was talking about we have a residential tower it is setback i don't know how many feet 60 or 70 from that frontage parallel to where this

building is built it looks nice and okay. if you build a nice residential building and obviously because of this other space directly in front of them they've avoid that but in terms of not feel a happy and light not a.com in what capacity structure is a huge improvement my objection it doesn't match the neighboring building. >> would you mind state your name. >> david over shaw. >> any other public comment?

>> you're not allowed to have any pictures i'm putting them up here no way. >> can i have my clock starting at 2 please. thank you. >> no, i have a not talked yet thank you. >> sue hester i'm the attorney for san franciscans reasonable growth that as a comment on this case next month going to use the picture of the building that was done by david osgood to illustrate my points but what

i'm asking for it if you continue this entire case until the hearing on the 27 when a variance is before you the variance is intervened where the 309 you can't close the variance you're asked to do could i the variance two handout are one this is the picture and the second thing the chronology of the case so there is a variance for this side and a variance for this side they're at the conditions and you're asked to allow the rear yard on that side to be set not setback and asking to do the design so it does the roof

you're asking to approve the design how do you do all of those without trampling over the variance what happened it on the schedule the entire building the last hearing the public hearing on the building was two years before the hearing before the planning commission this card is ridiculous so i will answer our questions oh, shut okay. >> could you not have 5 hundred cards here they are really i thinntrusive. >> no another public comment then we'll hear in the

appellant. >> from the planning commission doesn't have enough time to understand the case with the 5m case which they did at 10 o'clock at night and the is that i know with the board of supervisors 5 years at 1 o'clock you're doing it at 10 o'clock none looks at at the case really and truly comments were made about design no time to do the design you look at this you'll see the only hearing on the case was 9, 12, 13 and then 6 amendments, 5 amendments two other things amended the project so many times while they were

three staff people churning on the plan it started out with one plan went to another planner and the final planner had that approximately, six weeks what happened was not very good design along the waterfront all the buildings are setback the gap building they had a six months struggle and redevelopment agency this building here is those are new building along the waterfront not old buildings and the pardon me the redevelopment agency that has jurisdiction and had jurisdiction that on this site in the corner of it they had to take the entire urban design

plan and figure out how to step down to the waterfront to protect that you have views down streets and points inland the redevelopment agency does it job that's why the building looks at the way it does and the corner the north side looks at the way it does the planning department has never down done it on the waterfront they didn't take the time to understand what the urban design plan calls for i ask you to please continue it if you make a decision how will you do the design modifications onion was 27 i'm dead serious i don't understand this confirm of hearings and i would be

available to answer any questions but this has not had a vetting at the planning department. >> describe what the variance is for . >> two variances allowing them to have the enclosure to not have a sargent normally a 25 foot setback from the street as you've gone through we're at the lot line not a 25 foot setback and the second variance is for howard street they're calling the front of building and the variance is for a wider driveway on the front of the building when normally people will say the front of the building is on spear street not having a setback on the west side of the building

and so when you have a variance that requires a setback and you're setback is the variance is because no setback on the south side and you have the driveway on the north side which is the front of the building a wide driveway that is not san francisco. >> i'm sorry. >> those are the two variances. >> yes. the two variances. >> okay. we'll hear rebuttal from the motion holder. >> mary murphy just brief jeer this is an extensive review one a cumulative impact because the transit center would cause the intersection to fail on a significant urban soberly on rincon park for the shadows for

people where they sat and just to be clear the commission we spent time with the staff doing 0 the design the 309 is the downtown area, no hectic district no arrangement the buildings look like other buildings as police chief explained that is happened it have an aesthetic decision but the planning commission and the planning department staff seriously considered this design the exceptions in the 309 this project is based on the zone that is in the code since the mid 80s the downtown plan and under consideration they didn't lower the height this was consistent it was take into consideration with the transit district the height were not lowered it leafs an intervening

parcel owned by the city across the street on second street this is consistent with the design but the thirty 9 as mr. sanchez explained the staff and commission screwdriver a code enforcement building and concluded that building has less square footage and the narrower and the gentleman described in the design would be redistribute the bulk i understand commissioner swig you're not happy with the design but the decisions made 5 to one at the planning commission the eir was upheld i say board of supervisors people defer about the design but the massing and exceptions that are provided for in section thirty 9 in the code the planning commission had a thoughtful analysis why the

exception made that a better building and that's where what is before this building under the discretion or error in interpretation of law and i hear there is some disagreement about the aesthetics we don't want this board to be left with this expression not true the planning commission and staff didn't give serious circles or consideration a lot of high interaction and this is a prominent location he said that reasonable people defer in their preferences but this is very sound decision by the commission that deserves our consideration under the standards green before you tonight. >> you have are - a rob.

>> this project was decided an december 3rd by the planning commission and mr. osgood appealed the eir that meant the zoning administrator was prohibited if issuing the variance until after the eir was resolved which meant the appeal period they got an extra day mr. osgood arnold to hear this tonight and when ms. hester filed an appeal we this to hear it the earliest next week he would say because the suicide is different the variance we have to come forward and explain

where the zoning administrator correctly applied parts of thirty 5 for the variance to have a wider curve cut and have a units exposure that is you will that is there a different standard that was a different standard if i may emphasis the interpretation of the law is very differential to the mravrgs this board knows that the variance has a different standard i'll august it would be appropriate i would prefer that that board uphold it under the standards that are before the board tonight you know that would be the perfect decision if this board feels like a measure of discomfort and want to hear the variances i don't think that is necessary we'll have to august the standards and certainly though i think i don't believe it is necessary to hear

them together in other words, to make at decision under the standards that apply to this determination. >> the rear yard variance in terms of the rear yard variance and the surveillance i'm sorry the rear yard exception and rear yard for the dwelling unit exposure the configuration of the sites are form the basis for of the determination i'll say the rear yard you've heard from hearing that the rear yard i've heard two, that many. >> it is extremely common they grant it as a regular course of business in downtown that is a downtown site the issues that attend whether or not a rear

yard is appropriate where it is almost always granted it didn't apply in downtown really for the neighborhoods it is open space and the mid block open space so there are the physical configuration bears think both of those those are true commissioner fung. >> let's talk about it well, i on the da wants to jump up. >> the da has rebuttal go ahead and do our rebuttal. >> thank you. i don't have much to add but much is mentions in the context the other building on the waterfront with significant is not of upper levels i think this is a bit of a unique property if i can have the overhead please thank you. >> i'll try to zoom in like the gap building that has

significant setbacks are lots in the similar at all to the subject lot with the gap building is a through lot someone is e-mails me about going to bed there is much more to play with full block that is much more flexibility in terms of the massing and setbacks away from the waterfront and many murphy mentioned that so given the size of lot doing an upper level building with significantly impact the number of dwelling units in the property and perhaps in the inn the context with at least this particular lot with the localities we cut the back to the rear but i want to put that

out there and see if you have any other questions. >> i do so given the fact that is open space in the front is that buildable open space. >> that lot is not part of subject. >> but the lot is it buildable. >> the current deposition it is current property i'll let ms. murphy. >> that property is under the jurisdiction of the port own by dpw and only 75 feet and dpw early in the process the project sponsor approached possible building a park but dpw they were hoping to make money selling that and hadn't quite determined. >> i still more questions. >> so the concern is the lot

face for me by rightone: this is an iconic picture you'll see this front and in recent times with the planning department i dealt with they'll not allow a garage it is a protected site no see any postcards from the avenue this is a massive building and no protection for the waterfront of san francisco but and again but mrs. chang referenced more stringent requirements not an historic district so additional layers not required. >> this is how yes generally apply the rules it went through several layers of review and staff founds that the building to be something that was

compelling to justify the exceptions and would be an appropriate fits on the waterfront. >> go ahead. >> so i guess the concern is i'm trying to get the reasoning how garage doors on 34th avenue is a protected thing you can't touch it to put the original door back verse something that is iconic what makes the house on 30th after a hectic resource yet in multiple iconic part of san francisco. >> it is iconic but you can't have anything new; right? the transbay towers that is prominent the skyline of the

city the blocks are broke down and staff found this an appropriate design i'm representing the department and the staff found it was prosperity. >> any staff from san francisco on that. >> the director was involved. >> it was something i hear as some desire perhaps in continuing it and perhaps have more department staff that were involved in the project we can have them available at the next hearing to further elaborate on the justification for the design i think it so you would for fine-grain than the massing just the code issues getting into the materials as well so we can have

additional discussions if you like. >> how long did ms. chang with w work on that and short term. >> i think - how long did ms. chang's predecessor work on that project. >> i think that was go on disposal he was with the department less than a year. >> and 6 weeks and what about the thirds person that worked on that project again, i'm saying i'm supporting what is bothering me here and we should discuss not a question 6 weeks less than a year who knows what the third person did; right? this is is a - there should be setbacks and

lonts this is you're hiding behind laws and rules when, in fact, the waterfront of san francisco one of the laced renewed properties on the waterfront of san francisco you're putting something that someone's work on for 6 weeks and someone for less than a year and someone worked on nolo contendere nut. >> i disagree what about the expirations that approved the projects you candiscount >> that's a team of professionals and while the fast planner is doing the bulk of work the director has been involved since it's been the application was filed there is continuity internal i appreciate

your comments. >> and i think i'm appalled i think my good friend ace washington that came up was appalled 47 times i promised i wouldn't use the word again but in the, is to inconsistent so inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. >> do you have a question for the project architect. >> if i could i'd like to add. >> you need to ask a question. >> at this point i'm sorry. >> there was a request about continuity. >> no there was a question to the da if he has an answer i'd like to allow him.

>> he worked with planning for many years and complete continuity from director rahaim it is true that the staff members met several times i wanted to add many members of the pa planning department and multiple levels worked with us to support and he redistribution there are that. >> in the spirit of continuity i will say in the spirit of continuity to reason for the block inform setbacks the materials are completely different the blocking is completely different and i guess i'm just you know one of those horrible san franciscans that are trying to protect that last piece of beautiful lands from

something that has to be perfect but i mean the justification of well. >> do you mind if we move. >> the question of the hundred feet another question he had the zoning administrator it what is the justification that in the eir that well other hundred feet wouldn't matter it casts a shadows i don't get that. >> what i've heard repeatedly what the shadow on rincon park doesn't matter or other hundred feet because of the shadow is makes shadow and no excuse with no effort to protect the park by sergeants or lower the building. >> i appreciates i wasn't intending to say that shadows don't matter on rincon but the

200 foot height limit of it didn't get the height exemptions of it was brought down to two hundred 20 feet has a mustacheable impacts on the shadows on the park because under the study you have to reduce to one feet not to have the shadow impacts. >> if there were more setbacks and more loefr what that make a difference of shadowing on rincon park. >> the building setbacks a 200 feet building setback i don't think that will have much of an impact a one foot building one hundred feet, in fact, do a combination of lower the height and doing sixth district

significantly in order to have something that didn't have an impact on the park that results in a loss of many units. >> ms. murphy my original question continuance or not. >> respectfully although i do speak with my clients i want to say obviously that i want to be clear the department spent a lot of time very, very focused on the prominence of that although there is a building 65 foot tall that is something that pay attention i would like to add if i could look at the buildings do we have a visible. >> i think. >> i want to - >> go ahead. >> let me have a minute okay.

>> one minute. >> are we considering whether or not this is submitted yet. >> continue the question so i

haven't - >> you know the architect didn't say a thing. >> commissioner fung can i police are you suggesting we continue this one week for the thirty 9 a no combining it with the. >> given we have the approval on september 3rd one more second to confer with any client. >> i'll explain it you're not harmed by the detail i'd like

rather get everything to together i've heard the department and yourselves to talk about it a little bit and see how you want to deal with that. >> would it be possible to have the consolidated hearing we know you have a full calendar might not be possible. >> oh, no, i think i meant. >> we only have two hearing before that and one 35 cases. >> which day is that. >> you won't be added to that. >> go ahead take you're time.

>> i've been informed by the director we could have the consolidated hearing on the 13 of january. >> january sue. >> (inaudible). >> it is. >> since we have a debates on the timing would you recycle to inform us the matter is submit unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted.

>> i e unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> d unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> i submitted unless other questions. >> it is absolutely submitted. >> i understand. >> i'd like 0 briefly through the board you said why we don't want this continued we agreed to actually pay a 33 percent affordable housing fee this is a code enforcement we offered to pay 33 percent but there are certain impact fees hoping to

have it done i wonder in the board would consider to continue it to next week on that team perhaps have more members of staff that worked on this vertebral would the board take this under advisement given that is doing quite a very significant amount of affordable housing contribution above and beyond what the law requires. >> and some of the fees kick in january. >> it is conceivable but you think so i would be let's deal with that. >> i'm not here next week i'd

like to participate. >> all right. >> normally we would ask for concessus on any type continuance no concessus on a continuance then we should make our decision together. >> i'm not prepared to continue. >> i would have been that's okay. no type of concessus we'll deal with that tonight. >> okay. it does now. >> i don't see the harm in hearing it together are no matter what we'll hear it in a couple of weeks. >> there is a potential of a delay but. >> but normally we don't dictate. >> i understand. >> if they can't arrive at a

amenable we have had to deal with that. >> who wants to start. >> our da. >> i wanted to remind you that if you choose to modify or deny the thirty 9 decision you're required to make a written finding specifically the error of the discretion and stating the facts on which our rialto make that determination keep in mind as you think about that. >> understood. >> i mean, you guys you know where i stand it is a great building but you know personally. >> so what's the basis that

the commission use the discretion. >> what the is basis for seeing the board used its depreciation e discretion. >> for allowing a building that does not more duplicate active but or more continuity to the waterfrowaterfron waterfront. >> recently air force an elevator shift. >> that extended 13 feet off of james weldon johnson or bay street we uphold that it was a

beach an elevator shaft that exceeded six or eight feet and here we are having a full blown building into like as i said an iconic part of san francisco that elevators was different represented in 1907 and built to 21 feet >> i'm talking about the principles it was the festivities and the thoughts people see the skyline in the city i understand examiner and older buildings in san francisco but this is the front that is what you see when you come off the bridge. >> what their air a tv show that is kind of my feelings. >> i'll say that is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in general

providing a completely different direction and element as to the design and the massing not setback like it, it's neighboring building to the south and not setback like the building to the north it is and the excuse it is not really on the waterfront because their happens to be a small park it is owned by municipal transportation agency on the waterfront i mean so - >> somebody should make a motion. >> what will happen it is psa but before we make a motion i haven't made a comment yet. >> i'd like to hear our comment. >> i'll start off by saying after all those years and 10

years i have never viewed a project puncturing on its aesthetics i've had many opinions and some of the people at plan either awe tested to that or not i'm the one probably we looked at expectations before have talked about you know exceptions make buildings bulkier one of the things a in his normal that is used a couple of times people talk about slender building there are no slender building in san francisco more accurate phrase less unbelievable i didn't whether this one because of a reduction of a few feet it is slender it is not it is bulky but i'll make the argument that after all those years and looking at the urban design of

san francisco bulky buildings are the normal and it is unfortunate that the attempt from the post prop m at urban design the planning department tried to force or enforce was slender buildings but never got it what come down today is my opinion on the planning tributes verse the aesthetics attributes i don't have any arguments against the exemptions on aesthetics i'll share that privately with you.

>> the organization is based on the exception. >> i understand. >> it's up to you, your the zip code vote. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the planning department not error using the discretion in irish the downtown exemption. >> okay. on that motion than by commissioner king to deny the appeal and uphold the motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda no commissioner swig no so commissioners the position is 2 to you have to make a decision to leave it at that or continue to allow the missing commission to participate it is a case 3

votes make the decision either way. >> that's you are standard. >> i'd like to suggest we come back to commissioner fung's first suggestion to continue it to january was it 23. >> 27. >> 27. >> to uphold it. >> for this motion. >> right but a 2, 2 vote by itself upholds the department. >> does so by default. >> then the appellant can say the third person missed. >> i understand. >> let's be consistent. >> yeah. yeah. >> we have told everybody that

should the missing vote have an impact on it we'll continue this by ourselves i'm sorry that is con inconsistent. >> is that a motion commissioner swig. >> motion to continue this until january 27th. >> to allow commissioner wilson to participate. >> okay. any further discussion on that motion commissioners. >> seeing none, on that motion. >> commissioner fung commissioner hyland commissioner honda and okay. so that that motion carries and this item is continued until january 27th. >> there's no further business before the board. we're