>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, january 11, 2017, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals commissioner fung will be the presiding officer and joined any commissioner sanchez and commissioner rick swig we expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here our president commissioner honda will be absent the deputy city attorney will provide legal advice and gary advice and gary executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. at the table in the front is scott sanchez the zoning administrator and he's representing the planning

department and planning commission i expect weep be joined by snickering joe duffy representing the department of building inspection and deputy city attorney ann pierson is here representing the department of health and street electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. 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 after you've been sworn in or

affirmed please stand the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much so number one on tonight's agenda for general public comment for 0 anyone that wants to speak within the subject matter jurisdiction not on tonight's cleared up any general public comment okay. seeing none item 2 is commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioners anything. >> item 3 is the boards consideration of the minutes of the december 7, 2016, meeting. >> any he during the course or additions. >> move adoption. >> okay. is under any public comment on the minutes. >> no public comment on that motion than by commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes

commissioner fung commissioner wilson is absent and commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay. thank you so that motion does carry the next item i think vice president we need to wait. >> let's wait. >> until commissioner wilson arrives i'll call the item and this is item 4 appeal 16 danish versus the street use and mapping on 1590 sacramento street the issuance of the residential to the wireless box for the wireless facility permit the public hearings were held in july and phenomenon for further consideration on july 20th that was continued for the department of health before the board to clarify the standards in their review of wireless box permits

on july 27, 2016, the board voted four to one commissioner lazarus dissenting with the non- inclines was returned to the agreement of the parties and once commissioner wilson with the vice presidents ken sent. >> oh, commissioner wilson you're here. >> magically welcome. >> thank you. >> now that commissioner wilson is here we can move forward with this and give each member parties 3 minutes to address the board i think given the reason for the will continuance we might want to start with the department. >> that's fine. >> ms. higgins.

>> good evening. i'm amanda higgins with san francisco public works and director does this stated this case was continued to the board from july 2016 the ruling of the matters after the number one compliance issues with public works and the planning department as of today they have three hundred and 68 wireless facility permits the first permit was in 2010. >> of the use of the approved permits none have before found to think non-compliant with health reasons all facilities met the public health article 25, however, as discussed in july you 201623 of these permits were found to be non-compliant

with design the installed fats had disconnects that were a couple of inches larger lane the disconnects that are shown on the approved plans this disconnect which is required for wireless facilities that are insulate on pg&e owned wooden telephone poles they're a safety mechanism to insure the electrical circuit is prove or disprove energized and additionally 23 had go equipment installed at different size of the pole for the example the equipment was insulate in the southern side of the pole and in september 2016 they required their notice by physically moving the equipment so it the constructed facility was compliant with the approved

permit they also received written approval from planning to keep the larger disconnect switches go public works closed the notification in september 2016 and none of those non-compliant went to the board of appeals and we believe that we issued this permit correctly in accordance with article 25 for the reason we urge the board to deny the appeal thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez did you want to speak on this item. >> thank you. good evening commissioner fung happy new year scott sanchez planning department. thank you for your assistance in helping to resolve this as you may know at the time they were

23 sites out of compliance the department implement through assistance with the public works and the project sponsor to bring those sites into compliance there were cases where unpermitted changes were found to be in compliance or allowable and minor changes my understanding from staff those sites are not in compliance and available for any questions you may have thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> and hear from the appellant. >> just to confirm permit holder not appellant also here thank you for hearing us tonight commissioner fung mr. condemning has been civil and met with the

representatives on occasion has been concerned this facility might not not conform with the fcc guidelines we filled the applications and then substantially an equipment change that modifications the wattage so additional reports were prepared and mr. congest pointed out technical difference the site will comply that the fcc guidelines and the department of health is concerned and their certificate and we encourage you to move forward and include that i know to the repeat this is testing at the bay window and the fire escape so after installation the gentleman has assurance they'll comply that the fcc guidelines and condition to maintain the process or mechanism foreign further testing should that be

necessary a small discrete facility approved by the board of supervisors and through the public utilities commission to provide this excellent high speed services to the community we're thankful to bring deficiency 0 they match all drawings that were submitted again, we hope you can approve the project we're here to answer any questions and bill of the edison is here 3 did all the report if you have any questions he can answer those technical questions. >> thank you, mr. condemnikem

hear from the appellant now. >> may i put this down here. >> okay. >> all right. >> this is the site this is where the facility it is going to be installed this is my living room almost in my living room when the original permit was filed this drawing was filed with that you will notice in the bay windows on the picture are not on the drawing they've been omitted those bay windows would have been within the 6 foot

prohibited area specified by the department of health in the original application when i called this to the attention of dpw department of health a second approval was orientated reducing the 6 foot minimum to 4 foot there by making that possible to do the installation that was done despite of the fact the operating capacity of the antenna was increased not increased in a small way it went from the fcc r f c approved percentage of 23 percent to 66 percent doubled. >> and in reviewing both letters which you have in the

brief from the department of health one dated one from 2015 and one from 2016 you'll find inconsistently sisters that can't be reconciled we have a situation where someone is coming to you and this was another approved permit for something else like an extension on someone's kitchen we got the measurements all wrong and left off half the building and increased the capacity by 20 percent please approve our permit you would say yes, of course, we will and stamp it used nails when you put it together in the original facility under the original permit is not the same facility we are talking about now in minimum i would suggest that

verizon internet file a new permit with measurement that reflect the operations of the facility they prop this is reasonable. >> thank you, sir. >> any questions. >> not at this point. >> thank you any public comment on this item. >> if there are public comment please step forward. >> good evening my name is kevin i'm a third-generation californian i've lived ♪ glories state all my life my second tour in san francisco over 14 years i want to start with something

though i bought my first cell phone in 1985 and my carries was g t e-1 of the few carriers in the bay area any cell phone is not what it looks like today, this is the size of an office phone in your office the battery was a converted motorbike battery and the weight of the cell phone was 26 pound why do i start with that being a person who is very much into the high tech industry owning a cypress was important to make calls if you're from my generations any type of emergency if you happen to be driving you had to pull

over to the side of the road and find a cypress now in 1985 it predates something that happened a few years ago later in 1989 october i was in my office at the time and there was a large quartering that hit and shook the building i was working in silicon valley that was $45 million away from my home in portella valencia those of you that went through that in 1989 all phone service was stopped all landlines were unavailable from any office i couldn't call my home to find out if my family was okay phone services was 6

hours cypress services that is rather young at the time was restored one thirty minutes i was able to call my wife who had a cell phone and established corrections she was safe the emergencies the way their handled so handled in such a different way in thinking how to manage the emergencies is different one of the problems in the 1980s was driving down the 20dz was constantly losing any connection in the event that emergency happened i lost any call >> thank you, sir your time is up. >> >> oh, all right. >> any public comment on this

item step forward please. >> yes. i wanted to say that mr. kemp is reasonable they put in a proposal for what we want to install personally i wouldn't want that apparatus close to any living room and no one else would either. >> do you care to state your name for the record. >> no. >> any point comment okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners this item has been in front of us 4 times we need to put it to rest. >> the regulations are quite specific our ability to modify

those are limited i found no basis to accept the appeal and it is denied. >> i'll concur. >> so do you have a motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> thank you. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal that is properly issued commissioner fung commissioner honda - commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you. >> next item. >> is item appeal at san bruno avenue on the appeal for the

massage establishment attraction, llc on for hearing and start with the appellant. >> who has 7 minutes to present. >> good evening my name is shawn this is fred barker we represent the owner of the attraction spa i want you know know she's not a prostitute not a any public comment? this is a mom and worked her entire life in china and came her for herself and family and saved her savings to start this business three years ago attractions spa not once did the

police find sexual nature as my client was giving - should had no idea what was going on in her spa while i was giving birth people from the deducting entered her business inspector kim and and then and another inspector dpw and permit inspector donald duffey and city attorney dwight moore san francisco fire department mary and sergeant of the sfpd and jason sergeant antonio flores and interpreters came there to

fast forward human trafficking and child prostitution they found masseuse and gentleman in a private room engaging in private conduct appeared as though the woman was engaging in prostitution as soon as my client found out they termed terminated the employment and she's used her power to prohibit this i have pictures of her spa it is very beautiful and clean and her intention not to operate a house of prostitution not true. >> this is one incident that occurred and the city attorney is relying on website reviews

from the website called road maps for those of you who don't know this web site and back page.com are one of the two websites that promote prostitution and the feel of back page was arrested for pimping the website said the cannot - on the first page unknown whether those reviewers are the pictures depict the location or the reviews are facial a disclaimer on the website i don't know if you've been read the reviews some of the reviews the comments say those reviews are fake i know this is not a court of law but

this type of evidence is not admirable in the court of law and one case the court disallowed this type of evidence and cited a federal case shrimp company and in this case the court held people looked to the internet for communication the court continues to review that largely as one large catalyst for rumor and misinformation so not to mix words the court reiterates this web provides no way of verifying the augment city and nothing that under oath or subject to independent verification to take away this

woman's livelihood based on reviews on the internet is not fair i ask you approve her permit and given the fact she's having a baby she didn't want to continue with the business if given the permit she plans an selling this place thank you. >> thank you. >> so because at the day i was giving the birth to my baby i--i

don't know what happened and my permit fees and called me and said they have some problems and then my attorney said she didn't gave me in anything but i said if i found something you can't work anymore and start yeah - and then terminated her work because i case here and went to the place and i traded firm before and saved money to open this massage parlor and want to get the better life and want i don't want to engage with anything with prosecution

anything so if right now and they terminated my permit and i can sell my massage shop so i want to have my - and given the permit for the san francis permit and then he can sell - sell the massage shop. >> thank you we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening members of the board my name a ann deputy city attorney i'm appearing on behalf of the department of health and here where sergeant lee from the san francisco police department the department of health manual program is probable for

reviewing and there was certain circumstances 9 department is required to deny the permits specific no permit shall be initialed in the bits will be or operated in such a manner to endischarge the health of employees or an employee conducting illegal behave her permit was pending an inspection took place you'll hear 23 sergeant lee and during that inspection the officers walked into a room and observed a massage practitioner performing a sex act on a client no where for clients to perform the sex acts in the course to engage in illegal conduct the conduct was

observed during the inspection provided them a basis to deny the application for a permit as you've heard in the brief and tonight the appellant argues an isolated event first of all, the business owner is responsible for whatever onsite or offsite being absent is no accuse and gathered from a website call.com on - was far if isolated thirty reviews talk about the men that are not or went to the spa and engaged with sole practitioners in sex and those reviews are continent and graphic and they dispel the notion a one-time kurnls now it is true that those

are hearsay but the attorney for the appellant this is not a court of law an administrator venue for this type of evidence is admirable and it's negotiable we're allowing this for to the support did eyewitnesses testimony when the eyewitnesses on this sergeant lee we ask you consider the totality of the evidence and sustain the denial of permit application. >> good evening board my name is randy lee i'm a police officer with san francisco police department to give you thank you. >> - just to give you a little bit of background about myself i've been with the police department for 18 years and

promoted to sergeant 5 years ago i've currently assigned to conduct human trafficking versions in the special victims united unit i'm part of the mayor's office tasking on may 20th of last year a inspection was conducted in san francisco we were operating undercover officer capacity meaning i was in plain clothes and not in uniform me along with other city departments entered the attraction spa i entered with any partner and identified ourselves as police officers and had our police badge displayed i went in first and opened massage room number 2 close to the business as i opened the door i observed an asian male

completely naked lying on the manual table and the masseuse can say of ways giving him a blow job as soon as the masseuse saw me lift up her head and covered the asian males that he news with a towel the asian male was contained and interviewed afterwards we interviewed the masseuse. >> that's all thank you very much. >> questions we have a couple commissioners. >> sergeant lee our state you wrote the statement that utilized in the couple of these reports; is that correct? >> yes. >> the exact words was

appeared but the documentation submitted by the city attorney's office and by the health department was a little bit more definitive can you talk about the word appeared. >> it is just my writing style that's the way i write but i'm testifying to the fact that i did see a sex act took place and i also want to clarify when i opened the massage room number 2 which is a small room no obstruction for me seeing the massage table and the asian male consumer and masseuse the room was small and i was maybe 6 to 8 feet away from the masseuse and had a view of the sex act. >> counselor the the decision

that was made also includes permanent baring this 3rr8d on what basis. >> i'm aware that was order by the hearing officer and there was no order for that portion. >> say that again. >> that portion of the order was in the hoff hearing officer and i'm not sure that was the basis to include that in the order. >> can you clarify are you done commissioner i'm sorry. >> just opted to a door for a question on my mind two penalties noted and associated with $11,000 fine and the suspension of a permit and no ability to reapply

is that in the documentation from in documentation of related to the statutes the word may is used as opposed to shall may is a wonderfully ambiguous and shall is clear that's it and is this a may or is that a shall is this standard procedure if - when this is not the first time i'm sure sergeant lee as walked in on a problem and is this an automatic football met for 15 yard penalty and our out of the game or an arrest try measure the football analogy is lost on me but the denial not a permit

revocation that probably comes before you this is a situation where the the establishment was not permitted and yet already in operation that is a limited circumstance and with the inspection of that establishment before that was permitted so what we need to do look at the code that talks about the circumstances under which 9 department should grant or deny a permit under the circumstances the language is going mandated a permit shall not be awarded among them from the department finds a business is operated in a way thmakes that a risk to th public it is a shall. >> okay. thank you. >> not quite sure how to

phrase my question. >> so a.d. milling those reviews are hearsay no question and what did you give them frankly they're not the most trustworthy source you're thinking there was so many of them what weight should we give that. >> they're not unlike the yep reviews people have little incentive to lie i think they going on and say their gender and i can't imagine yep has a road map we cannot verify the adequacy but i can't imagine most online reviews have that disclaimer the weight you give

it will be influenced by whether you think this on, on the site had a reason to lie i can't think of one thirty reviews and steering wheel consistent in the reports of what occurred they're specific so the breath of them and the number of them and consistency the fact that i'm hard-pressed to find a reason someone would be motivated to lie might cause you go give them great weight we offer that because of eyewitnesses testimony and offer that in support of that. >> i can say why they'll lie but the internet provides aminity people firemen because of no consequence you know making a statement about someone

none so say you're a liar or challenge you sometimes like in yelp reviews other things that are not the truth one last question was that thirty over time. >> over the course of two years. >> thank you. >> i was going to wait to hear the rest but to hear rebuttal i did have a question probably as the member of this board heard the month of these cases going back to the 80s historically the department has not taken such an action on a first time situation we've had situations were there were fines, there were

conditions placed has the statute changed. >> the statutes was amended in 2015 i don't know that was amend in a way that addresses our question i do think that most often those cases come to the board concerning a permitted establishment and the department is seeking to suspend the permit or impose and penalty here we're at the point this business has not yet been given a permit and the department has reason to believe it shouldn't be the language at that stage the permit shall not be grant if they make the finding. >> how was she operating all that time without a permit. >> the law was changed no 2015

prior to that time massage establishments could be opened and now they need a local permit a grass period to the businesses that were open you can continue to operate if you apply for one and stay in operation until if so r0e6 resolved. >> so this is labor intensive how many of you at the establishment as you. >> probably 10 to 15 people. >> different agencies. >> so you're all looking for different things when you're at the establishment. >> that's correct dpw is looking for their violations and fire and we're looking for human trafficking and prostitution sex violations. >> so this was a route

inspection based on the applied for a permit to make a recommendation whether they should or shouldn't receive a permit. >> sfpd didn't come pile a list where inspectors to be conducted that of those on the on this particular day on the list i don't remember exactly where this massage parlor was on the list but that was on the list and did several inspectors during this day. >> thank you. >> any public comment? please step forward. >> yes. i came down to actually comment on this case because i live in the neighborhood and when the establishment came into being i

look at the you know title and it said attraction massage and then i love getting manuals but attraction massages sometimes those place have prostitutions all over the place attractiveness what does that has to do with with a attraction only between the masseuse and the consumer along with the logo a beautiful woman with long, long hair a sexy logo this gave me the feeling hey, people that is for prostitution not don't come in here for a back massage i love getting massages i thought that place was closed to me but to me that is glaurgz saying for the other purpose and on the ground floor the entire

front is covered with sheer curtains you can't see inside a male place would be open see in the window that is going on and welcoming door open and everything i happen to do any laundry directly across the street and waiting for my cloths to dry i see a single man going on and it seems like the door is locked and he's looking around like he's kind of embarrassed that is evidence and yeah. the bus stop is there, too so i've been out there you know, i see you know a little bit of what's going on that's my impression i worry because i hope women have not in there diagnose

prostitution and not against there will i would feel horrible for them. >> any public comment? seeing none, rebuttal then. >> my name is fred barker attorney i would - in a case there's no the court should - the commission should give this woman to get a permit and sell the business questions you were asking the attorney and the police police it seems like there are doubts there was an actual sexual

activities i think the commission. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> the commission to lovely those doubts and allow this woman it get a permit and sell the business. >> also like to appoint i like the yelp reviews the road maps to assess the reviews or write a review actually i've become a member and pay money and tried to do that last night and there is an incentive to write reviews that are based on things i think this body should look at what actual evidence that is presented before it i don't think those reviews should have any bearing to your decision an extreme measure to revoke i know it's not a revocation of her

license she was legally permitted to operate this massage establishment and my client was mentioning that the front is never covered i don't know if this lady is confusing that with another place. >> i think almost. >> talk into the microphone. >> yeah. and we have so many women consumers almost everyday we have women customers in the neighborhood and they came and have a manual and then they sometimes they say hello i don't think and - we have the windows because the permit department not allowed to close the window outside people can see the inside. >> the question ms. adjoining

do know own the building. >> no. >> anything in the department further. >> i have a question when ms. yanki yang. >> permits are not transferable she has no permit to transfer. >> even if she got the permit back. >> even if she got the permit that is non-transferable. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> so a couple of things having spent about a few decades in another hospitality business

selling hotel rooms and operating food and beverage establishment there especially in the alcohol area there are significant statutes that are very, very clear and if you put up you sell a glass of beer after 2:00 a.m. and there happens to be somebody from the abc there's no forgiveness if you sell to a minor and someone from abc there and catch you or the police your gone that's the way it is and regardless of the proprietor is there or not is not a standard that's the providers responsible for what goes on twenty-four hour a day or during the operation of the in this case a

bar or my analogies and my feelings for a massage parlor the provider has to be responsible foreign their employees the issue related to i'm semi sympathetic to the issues of online commentary again, the hotel business and other you tourism businesses are subject to commentary on trip advisory or yelp and confer with helens council that sometimes they're not accurate sometimes rendered out of the despite and maybe the person didn't get the room rate arrest discount on extra beggar shortcake they write something bad i've learned

over the last especially 10 years when or over thirty years revaefl guests comments where there is smoke there's fire if we get if a breeder hotel gets consistent comments on rough towels we will have rough towels and if the same thing with ever incident although this would - i would not rely on the com try of the internet site as the basis for a finding i would still consider where there is consistent smoke there is fire but certainly when a member of the sf pd telegraphs he saw with

his eyes what we saw this is against the rules and law and the penalty apply and that's my point of view. >> question for city attorney the issue before us is the permit. >> ; is that correct. >> the denial of the permit correct. >> the other issues the other penalty imposed by the health department is not for our jurisdiction is that accurate. >> i think there is an argument that it could be before you i don't know what the departments position is on that point however, the charter does say the granting of a permit you have jurisdiction. >> the city attorney is saying with respect to the permit but the sign is not before. >> we understand that but the hearing order has been appealed

the hearing order for all 4 of the conditions. >> it's the denial of permit. >> the permit. >> that's not what it says in their letter is say there are a basis for appeal of everything in front of that. >> the board didn't have the authority to hear an appeal of the sign and i agree all right. the question is on the other appeal. >> the other 3 being the denial of the permit the permit bar and is there another - >> oh. >> so if we were not 9 appropriate body for that lets say we take an action for hypothetical purposes a pulse of denial do we have another resources in terms of how that applies because it she's

permanently barred can she go to court on that issue. >> possibly and can apply for a permit and then have the permit barred. >> because you know the code does say we can't reapply for a year after that; right? >> that's been the position we understand that. >> the code but if i'm reading the hearing order everything there has been appealed. >> that may or may not be appropriate gown. >> i'm sorry but that's what happened from the department should have separated their decision they made a decision that they felt was appropriate their

perspective it was the purview at the time to deal with all the matters. >> the fact they all got bundled up when it came to us i don't feel it is germane and continue i'll be inclined to deny the appeal and support the department in the denial of the permit period. >> i would concur. >> i don't disagree with that as a course of action but agree the department has made a case that the online reviews they have representatives the violation. >> you're saying you're not supporting the department. >> no, i'm not either with any

motion. >> i'm saying i think there was a legitimate i think legitimate act that occurred that was witnessed and collaborated and this is the position to deny the permit so that's my motion. >> and my position says the same thing that i'm not take into consideration the online reporting as evidence but clearly the evidence of the sfpd sergeant walking in and - and that's enough. >> yeah. >> as a clarification to the original report no question i think the issue for me is that if you can't appeal the for them active banning equip in a court

of law where are you. >> another way to appeal it wait the year and reapply those two options the court - and i understand i don't accept that that the department what make that kind of condition and not have appealed somewhere and like the fine it is appealed in the course of a year. >> i understand what you're saying i still doesn't understand that. >> there's a motion and a basis for that motion. >> that there was a such evidence to support the denial of the permit based on the work of the task force. >> is that sufficient. >> based on the finding the task force okay. >> the task force a motion

from commissioner lazarus too did to depend on the basis of the findings by the task force on that motion. >> commissioner fung. >> president is absent commissioner wilson. >> deny the appeal and uphold the appeal on the basis of the finding made by the task force. >> the issue before the board is whether - >> the finding the task force which i believe was separates from the evidence on the website; right? i appreciate that that's my understanding. >> that evidence was added by the department in their brief

yes. >> commissioner swig. >> okay be that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you. >> we'll move on to item 6 ab which will be heard together both jurisdiction requests for 28 plus point street filed by diana taking jurisdiction over this the others is filed by patricia and scott asking the board take jurisdiction over the permitted that permit was approved was issued by the department of building inspection with the planning department approval and ended up in 2016 - the jurisdiction request was filed and the gwen's was filed with the board on

december 19, 2016, the permit holder is the partners the project to add 13 plus by one story at the rare and endangered one story on top at the endanger the eastern lightwell and roof deck on top of the new story and reconfiguration and give each requester 3 minutes and give the other parties 6 minutes. >> hello, i'm diana i live only north point next to the building in question i ask you on the appeal period so i can file the appeal on november 7th and issued on december 5th i was out of the country from november 10th to december 4th immediately my return i came down to the board of appeals to see what can be done to submit

an appeal since the date passed the appeal was posted november 9th and didn't arrive added any home until november 10th i was out the country i had no knowledge the permit was issued to check to see when the permit was issued i did try i called a couple of times since the dr in june and sometime you you know it was december before it was issued so i did try to call a couple of times to planning if get a response to when it was issued the my neighborhood the gwen's so i asked did board of appeals why i've to the received anything they told me i invited to check with planning i immediately went to the planning

department they showed me the letters that were sent and the the gepz were on the mailing list no letter was sent an error by the planning department they didn't mail to the quinns the periphery was reluctant to change the actual dates the november 7th of the permit so you see the subsequent letter showing december 7th but the letter to the quinns and reconcurring letter to everything else that was involved on december 5th so that's basically, it i'm asking you to reopen so i can file an appeal so thank you very much. >> appreciate it. >> okay. we'll hear from

patricia and scott quinn kaepd my name is scott quinn i'm here with my wife patricia i apologize for the resolution illustration on exhibit one that is the letter that was sent we're adjacent neighbors to the project and the date is december 5, 2016, it has a permit 11, 7 clearly the window expired on the 22 therefore we received a notice after after the appeal window had been expired we besides that is a requirement that adjacent neighbors be notified we're adjacent neighbors also identified in the place here i substantially written mr. ed

sweeney and asking him to send a letter to the board certifying the notice was sent a copy of the response response is from david young he managed the issuance board and investigated the matter and received it on december 9th a clerical error we want to file an appeal if you grant the request within the 5 day period two points we intended to appeal the approved permit that is currently enforced one of which on the basis of an error on the part of commission secretary who graciously acknowledged the error including the fourth roof

terrace it was not excluded from the permit you'll see in my submission will there was a fourth floor and the gentleman september i believe a copy to the board as well as the corrected discretionary review that includes as item number 3 the eliminations of the fourth floor terrace so that's one of the basis we expect to appeal the other one to further enforce the finding of the dr commission to improve the privacy we have in fact, a lack of privacy we will receive in the permit includes the extension of the first level roof terrace is continues we'll push back on it and made a generous offer we think to the preordain to allow

them to build did lightwell 18 by 5 feet reducing our light in order to allow them to reduce that terrace and approve it as well as expand to the full width to the property line so we think we're trying to resolve this matter and hope reach a rule with that party before we come back to the board of appeals. >> thank you your time is up. >> okay. we'll hear from mr. sunny. >> good evening members of the board tom tony on behalf of the permit holder as you may know we've conceded at the quinns so i think we have a procedural question here as to how the appeal hobo structured i

understand from staff that once jurisdiction has been granted to one appellant then the party that was prevailing party at the discretionary review is appealed automatically becomes a party to the granted appeal; is that correct. >> there is is something in the code an adjacent neighbor that is successful in whole or part in a discretionary review would be considered a party to the appeal this is in the business and ethics regulation code. >> so the only issue at this point is that the planning department has issued a corrected discretionary review action memo and as mr. quinn allowed to hopefully, we'll come to a resolution of the matter and

settle with both neighbors we wanted to be make sure we did whatever was necessary and maybe the zoning administrator what weigh in to be sure should the appeal go forward it is the appeal will concern the revised permit that complies with the new discretionary review action memo i'm sorry that's probably all confusing but the zoning administrator maybe can explain that and i think he'll understand the question. >> well, he'll have an opportunity to speak but - i say short we do not oppose the quinns jurisdiction request a clerical mistake to the appeal is justified. >> i thought part of your question if we grant jurisdiction then that is open to appeals from anybody was that part of your question.

>> no, no then if appealed then the other jurisdiction requester in this case because they're in an adjacent neighbor they might have had may have had her jurisdiction request denied but so theoretically she couldn't appeal but according to the board's rules an adjacent neighbor and paralyzed at the discretionary review hearing becomes a party to the appeal filed by the quinns anyway. >> all right. >> according to the business and tax regulation code not outdoor rules. >> are you finished? >> that's all i have. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so rejectable two errors the

city made first on issuance the required notification not given to all neighbors the department notifications that was one for one of the property and intum it was done but not a new appeal period and second the permit shouldn't have been issued at all because our planning department didn't a properly note the krefk hearing and we appreciate the whole the neighbors brought that to your attention we would have caught this the first time around but staff reviewed the hearing and minutes and did confirm there was an additional condition that is reflected in the corrected discretionary review memo that was given to you yesterday with that i'll be happy to talk to

them they'll need to make changes there are two packets moving forward first, the appeal route that seems to be you know where things are going in the jurisdiction is granted the appeal period and enough to bring the matter before you this board can correct the error and impose the conditions imploded by the planning commission and second if no appeal filed justice a provision requirement that corrects the project brings it into compliance a operate building permit that has a separate appeal period that's not up to our department but the process moving forward but certainly the most straightforward perhaps for the jurisdiction of the project is granted and the project sponsor

agrees to a - that will suspend the permit and bring to toss board and request at the hearing grant the appeal and impose revised plans that adopt the planning commission decision. >> any other thoughts or comments or positions that you will have about the project. >> so that's would be our observation at this point and apologizes for the confusion and delays. >> the permit that is submitted shows a fourth floor. >> the permit does not comply and the fourth floor terrace that should be removed. >> i have two questions. >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> how was it determined despite on a list for a letter

the letter was not sent. >> that's department of building inspection we have different mailing process so maybe the neighbor came in and saw the mailing materials in the department for the section 311 we'll list the owner occupied by the 311 but not the list which is a separate notification that occurs with the building permit is issued and not handled by our department. >> a question for inspector duffy. >> if we go forward and grant jurisdiction and the appeal is filed i believe i heard one of the appellants and dr requesters suggested further modified what is going on so is there some probably that can be worked out

as well. >> absolutely and this board will retain full jurisdiction over the permit you have the right to overturn the conditions by the planning commission so you could say that one or more of the conditions that those the commission imposed were improper we are requesting the board and project sponsor agreed to this would - at the minimum will rise the project and be - >> and minimum and go beyond. >> thank you. >> thank. >> my question is simple and let the city attorney - if a breeder notice for a permit goes out and it stating the wrong facts forgot forget the fact

that the didn't state the facts correctly why don't you just nullify the whole act and reissue that the notification was proper proper information because anybody aside from the neighbors anybody that has a potential interest in this when the permit was issued and the notice was issued was provided with misinformation so since if it was already clear and admittedly misinformation why not just why isn't the act cancelled and restaged and the notice in question was issued by the department of building inspection so they'll have jurisdiction over issuing public school but my understanding it was a matter of the equity not

involved. >> but a summary of what of the permitted including a deck that was not part of the deal; correct? that's my point. >> this is based on - once a project is submitted the project gets submitted and a - there's a project depiction son day one of the planning department has no ability to change that project description when there are changes solely one the purview of the department of building inspection to modify or change any project description we don't have the ability to change the notice and certainly the responsibility of the

project sponsor and the department of building inspection to update any description is accurate we rely on- this is not uncommon i mean the scopes change often we rely on the not the product description what is on the plan not in the written project description. >> unfortunately. >> i'm looking at it from the citizens point of view not the department i understand your point of view clearly if i'm not a professional in that area i live next door behind the the subject property and have an interest and provided with misinformation to make a decision as to whether i'll appeal or not for me, i think this is an important issue. >> i agree asian-american the record should be clear. >> and for me that would if it was me sitting next to that

project and i was provided misinformation i would probably be cranky i was provided with that and ask for a reboot. >> i understand. >> i thought your question why couldn't the planning department ask for the permit to be revoked based on issue of error. >> the whole notification process be redone so that the people who with fair information and accurate information could make a fair and honest judgment as to appeal fort worth the time but appealing the project. >> i agree the product description should be accurate we're not responsible and don't have control over the

description and certainly this is another option just brought to your attention into the request process through the application at that point, we it and it has an error rereached to the project sponsor and in my opinion the hearing dates was approaching we didn't have the dr action until yesterday to come to the hearing and explain to the board and generally the project sponsor was aware of it being an issue and we're on notice go ahead and start work and build what was approved as an error if we were not going to accept that. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. >> inspector duffy.

>> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi i agree with everything on the 90s if dbi and mistake on one of the queries they didn't get the letter when it was issued in november it was substantially corrected he agree with that and want to make a comment on mraunz was spec about we see the permit when their issued it is a great source of frustration inch brought that up with people over the years the description is put on on day one through the process that project may change and the eliminations of a roof deck and maybe a floor but the description of the permit sometimes most of time

fact of the matter didn't get changed the permit goes out the door what you end up with not a little underway flaw in the system i was trying to get it fixed but even - and mr. sanchez said dbi has the power to change that if it changes during the planning process may be planning as well as to let us know and payroll my old inquires this is has to go 0 computer people it is a big deal and a legal thing you know the permit applicant needs to be involved it is highlighted i've seen this happen before and on permits believe it or not a number of these building you commit to a 50 floor and up to 52 that's not

changed the inspector has to agree with that so that's me agreeing with the point and i'm available for any questions from a dbi point of view. >> questions more a point of curiosity if a breeder site permit than doesn't that notice still go out for it structural. >> yes. >> even that's part of an addendum. >> you can appeal only the site permit that's our opportunity and i think that with dbi the structural notification by the way, the reason not 80 t the three hundred but for the purposes maybe someone will excavate next to our property line and the

neighbors give them an opportunity to look at it and or foil an appeal in we are to your question done at the time of the site permit and any public comment on this item. >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> and remember two questions that should be considered. >> yes. >> comments. >> i think i've made mine. >> i'm somewhat inclined that will be used to deny the first jurisdictional request. >> is that your motion then. >> do i have to do all the work tonight. >> the chair didn't. >> we have separate motion. >> yes. probably.

>> okay. >> then unless someone else wants to i will move to deny the jurisdiction request for 6 a on the basis that the department did not cause the jurisdiction request to occur okay. >> okay. on that motion is from commissioner lazarus to deny the request under 6 a our commissioner fung. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay so that request is denied. >> and move to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the department erred and caused the appellants to miss the deadline. >> from commissioner lazarus to grant the request under 6 b on that motion commissioner fung. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. so that request is

granted thank you, commissioners. >> move on to item no. 7 appeal - >> commissioners need to take a break. >> sure. >> we have a short break. >> to gavel out vice president. >> sorry. >> are we ready. >> yeah. >> we're resuming the meeting of board of appeals for wednesday, january 11, 2017, we're on item no. 7. >> appeal number 16 jane black versus the department of building inspection with the 1 juice avenue appealing december 2nd to clay ton of an

alteration with a new upper and lower deck and we'll start with the appellant 7 minutes to present your case. >> hi my name is jane i live on this avenue that is a 75. >> would you speak into the microphone please. my name is jane i live here and i lived in the 75-year-old duplex and like to see that everyone is on the same page about duplexes which i presenting can i have the overhead, please? with the existence definition of a deluxe and show how the deck we are appealing is completely out the character and much too wlarg larger for the space i've

lived ♪ duplex for almost 25 years my parents bought it in 1960 and we intend to stay there as a family i have if trust quite a while and myself had the deck built and when i had the decks built i took great pains to have careful plans made by actual architects and i have plans with me if you like to see them they question my numbers excuse me - i have a cold and this is one that i have the architect is very famous and has nothing about good recommendations and had a survey of our property this one imply

stan a paramount surveyor in the city and a lot of these good recommendations and we went ahead and had those decks actually had been there but over rotting away had them repaired and the entire house gone over by those two experts so i made sure my property lines were correct with a fence and everything in my house hadn't been up to code ways brought up to code and done by proper architects if you want to see the drawings i have them here and can hand them over with a rural you can check any figures we're asking here is two simple,

3 simple things one we want to have the size of the deck smaller and separated from the actual home because it is just not going to be possible to have any kind of shrubbery i have an aerial photo here of our the duplex and as you can see the roof are together this is mine at the 455 and my neighbors and we're completely twins we're like is he messes twins it is difficult - what is beautiful for the

environment and have someone disrupt the whole thing with a landing pad for an aircraft besides taking the backyard and in event the reason i brought up this permit should not be passed through because there is so many mistakes on that if you can notice in the first line there's 3 mistakes and a price of $30,000 to do a deck that actually 5 hundred and 65 square feet altogether it took i paid $35,000 to have just my porch and so i think that will be very disconcerting

to the coffers when this is passed because that will never get that kind of money first there were 2 stories and there's only one story many of those things have been changed and construction is only to be for an upper and lower deck at the rear of the building so it was just passed very quickly throwing without the correct information they said they having had an architect and engineer but none on this if you want to check that i have in red it can be shown and on the drawings which are very - well, i guess you can say inadequate the fingers are incorrect the size of the house had not been

exaggerated and all the figures are off here's another example where what figures are wrong i think that the planning department had gotten the correct figures it will not have put this over-the-counter and rubber stamped is one the claims that deck is going to be the same as everything that the rest of the tab on the block that will show that the rest of us do have much smaller decks this is the deck proposed it is at least twice as large and anything else so this is showing the proportion of the house what the deck needs it takes up the same amount of house as the deck itself 75 percent of the house

size and this is what is shows that will look like to us with people coming down the stairs if you want to change to the odds our walkway this is the people one foot away from our terrace walkway and not even shown on the plan so we are going to - >> ma'am, ask the stairs be changed. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> you'll have rebuttal time to continue ouyour position. >> good evening. i'm clayton a homeowner so we are the owners

of the home on 19th street it was approved over-the-counter on december 2nd and extend on december 20th we've notified her a month before the permit was approved of the our intentions with the rear yard deck with the deck in her backyard and she had no objection we met and actually her daughter our contractor in our homes for an hour, however, we understand they're two fold our project about jeopardize their project subsequent communication we tried to explain to them our roof deck was smaller than her house on the odds of us and structurally save from is an engineering

point of view and hired a professional with expertise and information for the feasibility of our project - we show in the presentation that our project didn't compromise her privacy and that compliments our project and it is safe and show that she has two projects without permits i'll explain the violations in my presentation the suspension is greatly - we were set to start this project last fall we have a 90 day business contract would have been finished by now and nonetheless we have been working on, on project and request our permit. >> shown here is my home on the left and her on the right in the homes that are facing the

homes single-family homes the ground floor is at street level but the rear is two levels above grade and next to each other the privacy is compromised they'll see into their neighbors backyard and come close to each other and - >> our project was designed by a licenses architect and engineer under the planning code and the upper panels show the current site elevation and here shown the proposed i'm sorry can you hear me. >> use the other microphone. >> raise if you want. >> sure our upper will be 90

square feet and the view - the view from the neighbors at the 5 - we have a letter from them we discussed with them they center no objection to our project. >> so this is our home in the middle with the neighbors property on the left and right any intention by design we limited the scope and scale to be permittable we want to get the permits over-the-counter and be allowable buildable area and kept the height of the deck less than 10 feet so over-the-counter to minimize the process our neighbors have not been restricted the size of their deck and this is extended so -

>> she's requesting a couple of modifications one that we - oh. >> one that he reorient our stairs the stairs are in the orientation they've been there for the last 75 years and increase the distance between the perhaps we don't on the modifications will increase their privacy. >> she was concerned our lower deck would be higher than her lower deck our lower deck is in the middle of that it - so the rest of the presentation has concerned her belief her home is

a duplex we share a common wall they believed this is this the case for the - be unsafe from an engineering perspective this is not true the copy of the global permit a single-family home and it is a separate building. >> this is the sanborn map. >> we tore a piece of panel that covers the place in the backyard wrg our side walls meet so show we have separate walls there was work on the 2006 and the permit was more my home we shared a common foundation. >> if we shared a common

foundation you expect our walls to be in line but though - objective the stairs location this is those stairs will be replaced with something we- and her privacy is reorienting not effecting her privacy. >> so when she had a rear deck they were done without a permit she was issued a notice of violation the decks were legalized by added those fences to the upper deck not part of plan. >> and this is my view of the - >> you'll have time. >> so we're - okay.

>> thank you maybe i can remove our papers and hear from the department. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. to review the plans associated with the the subject property permit the project is fully code compliant an rh2 didn't encroach into the rear yard some of the materials argument that it violations the section this is not relevant we can extend to the property line up to the last 25 percent so the provisions for the setback and the pop but is not relevant we allow a deck no higher than 10 feet not

requiring a session 311 notification one thing that would be good to see the the subject property permit when you look at the just a minute property rip it makes the project more supportable we think to do something similar but larger than it has naturals we novelist done a complete investigation to the legality that came around the 1992 notification that talked about the decks that permit was scheduled cancelled and not issued so there was a invoked to variance but that permit i don't have the plans but the proper

construction was $4,000 i don't know if it computed a deck at the rear but on the merit it is code compliant and they're close they were to go 10 feet they need a notice of violation but they're showing on the plan it was properly issued and looking, however, it relates to the adjacent property and the appellants property i don't have a problem with the design elks. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit for the construct for the upper and lower deck at the rear the building was reviewed by our dbi

plan check that was over-the-counter approval and i have reviewed the plan and the plans are pretty good and everything looks plenty of good details and inspectors and everything we want on a set of drawings it was well done one thing the appellant brought up about the application sometimes you get mark outs and sometimes, people put in it wrong it is typically done wrong that is a numeral system they come to dbi we fixtures it i'm used to seeing this the engineers should have been on the building permit but by the bureaucracy and permit applicant over and over the engineer writing a letter to make that to the dbi record

there will be is an engineer of record i think the building has a basement that is not on the permit but again, we sometimes see that that is documented on property through the one-story building i suspect a basement on there not noted on the plan and permit again not - a big deal blank could mean zero should be property story one basement other than that, i don't see any other issues from the building department i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy can you discuss what the building department will do in event a common framing and or common

foundation. >> we do plans thanks for asking that question the roof deck will not matter in this case but typically and see sometimes on residents in san francisco where maybe in the 20s or 30s seen developer in the 1920s or 30s the developer built a row of homes and not uncommon to put the foundations we need the engineer to get involved and discussions between the property owners i have seen it before it is just got to work a little bit more carefully and take into consideration the other perso foundation i think we've had appeals on 3 avenue that was brought before us on this same issue it is we do ask the

engineers to monitor it and they can't go in there and jackhammer it, it is the roof deck it won't come into play hopefully, you'll agree with me. >> i know you're more of an expert it is a san francisco thing a zero lot line for construction. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, rebuttal from the appellant 3 minutes. >> i'm glad it scalp about they're being a combined foundation i have a letter here from i guess one of those non-recommendations for the

engineers that is being used in this case mr., sir and it said please don't use this man he's not good with his plans i also have something from the building department a complaint because of the construction was overdone was not done on the foundation in the back which is very weak and i can't believe that the department is going to allow this huge deck the size of an aircraft carrier to the attached to this little tina foundation i can show you is totally attached to the one of my belief this is my building this is they're building as you can see it is cracking and falling apart the

planning department person can see this with his own eyes would want further people look at this is the going to be very unsafe and blow this and very steep location have not been notified this is a huge deck if there is an earthquake not abiding by the standards that our deck was made which is the 4 by 4 all the way down into the bedrock they had those little tiny things on very top with a little bit into the loss soil the man that owned it before shoveled out his basement

and put dirt into there not in the bedrock or the hard soil it is going to be something that they want to complain about they call this a fence this is what we see if i don't - have those privacy barriers the people that lived there before begged me saw into their windows all the way to their halls i had a very good contractor with plans to make that attractive and now we're getting complaints i'm sorry - >> thank you. we, have rebuttal from the permit holder

now. >> so there was foundation work by prior people in 2006 side foundations were repaired and the rear foundation was replaced 24 was permitted and in the section so no issue with that foundation. >> again, the view of the upper deck not part of plan from my kitchen. >> we're civil grand jury mindful of profess a picture from a couple of years ago we've maintained a publish garden and board we share with a common property line with we intend to do something similar in the back. >> i have a question

in the photo that you showed with the cracks is that a current photo. >> you said you have that repairs. >> the repairs were done in 2006. >> yes. >> why not finish your presentation. >> are you done. >> basically yes. >> all right. >> okay. then anything further from the department? no, yes? >> joe duffy dbi just on the cracks that is the appellant want to file a complaint with dbi we'll look at that matter and may end up looking at the briefs some of the photos of the appellants deck he recommend you not look at the followed out the

fence was tilted sometimes we go out and writing up both sides for issues if there is cracking and without the engineer of record we'll not get a report if make concrete flat work we can look at that no problem. >> i hope you don't create further problems. >> inc. we're aware of that. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> something else speak up. >> i understand the concerns that are come forth when something new occurs unfortunately, the project appears to be a reasonable project i don't see that as creating the same issues that the appellant

has therefore i find that the permit is appropriate issued. >> i would concur. >> i'm move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> thank you on that motion then from the vice president who denied the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig. >> thank you that that motion carries for the vote of 4 to zero and move on to item 8 city core versus the deserve the property on 333 fremont street of a letter of determination regarding whether additional parking by operating a valet

service within the existing parking garage we'll start with the appellant. >> thank you. good evening mr. vice president and members of the board david legal counsel for city core and fremont venture the zoning administrator dereliction we've appealed ♪ issue before you is an error it applies to the rincon hill parking in the parking garage and because of that rincon hill don't and the determination will need discretion and ask the board set it aside the planning commission approved this for 88 unit and parking garages that was expressly as and so forth in

the planning commission subject to the zoning prior to the rincon hill zoning that was our c four happened shortly before the board of supervisors adapted the rincon hill zoning even though approval multiple times said the property project is for the subject to the rincon hill project the code at that time, only regulated parking spaces it didn't say anything it limited the number of cars or vehicles that can use the parking spaces the code later changed to regulate the cars or vehicles that shows you that the prior regulation of those thing was intentional and was known but there is no limit in my applicable regulation to the project the design regulations that applied at the time or the approval as to the number of cars that can use the parking

garages the zoning administrator determination attempts to apply the rincon hill zoning but that's an error the city's brief says this is a new approval and this is not exempt from the rincon hill and a new approval is subject to the rincon hill zoning we disagree was that this applicant appellant is not asking for any approval they've not requested a permit they're simply asking for clarification they can use the 88 space parking garage to park more than 88 vehicles which no code or regulation prohibits even if the operative item were parking spaces the code at a time requires 8 spades but

allowed up to one .5 for accessory parking so code 51 that exist loudly up to one and 32 parking spaces ♪ garage the approval for 88 the valet parking spaces don't count against the parking requirement but again, this project was approved under regulations that required 88 parking spaces allot you up to one and 82 and placed inform limit on the vehicles that can use of parking spaces the appellant want to make the best use of underground parking spaces that constitutes the parking garage and be able to park cars when residents might be gone and for people that come to work in the area with valet parking you can make more efficient use of parking spaces i'll note a number of projects

in the neighborhood that are residential projects that have a similar arrangement and 38 bryant and that 3 beal and main are other works in the neighborhood of residential projects or projects with residential components that allow valet use of parking garages again to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of parking garages that appellant is asking for clarification it can use the approved 88 parking garages for more than 88 vehicles again, the regulations that were in effect at the time that was approved in 2005 the approval for the planning commission approval of this project required 88 spaces no where did those limit or medication cars that might use the 88 spaces that came about as

part of rincon hill zoning scheme but those regulations are not applicable to in project i'll boil it down thus, this really a fairly - there are a couple of simple questions before the board got rincon hill zoning regulations apply the answer is clearly no and the zoning administrator would agree with that do the regulations number 2 that apply to the project limit the number of vehicles that may use 7 parking garages the answer is no does the approval in 2005 limit the number of cars that may use the parking garages the answer is no with all respect the zoning administrator determination is politically rules to this project that don't apply to this project and when you talk away

oversee applicable rules no limit on the number of cars that can use this parking garages we respectfully request you set aside the zoning administrator's determination and confirm on the record no limit of cars that may use this partisanships either for the approval or the regulations that apply to this project in 2005 >> we have a quorum i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> or can do that during rebuttal. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> the property that were you brought up that have a valet system of 45 lansing and others not in our brief two other examples do any of those properties have

valet for limited number of spaces in excess of what their originally entitle for . >> so you have a number of spaces and then caps additional cars that maybe in the garage that's your question, sir i don't have the answer to your question i do know those projects operate in that way i've described. >> thank you. >> yep thank you. >> plans mraunz planning department i think that is fairly straightforward the letter of determination sought to by determination park more vehicles in the building than the planning commission approved and the response is that no

under the planning code need to seek a conditional use authorization give you a little bit of background the building is located within the rincon hill zoning district at the time the project was approved within the rc-4 and rincon hill district and residential sub district i would drawing your attention to page 4 of your own brief with the parking requirement for the rincon hill district specifically stating that parking in excess of one parking space shall not be at a later date a parking space above and beyond the 50 percent their brief shows not was the planning code said at the time beyond that the planning commission in their approval that was approved before the rincon hill rezoning

went into effect parking was a serious consideration for the commission they approved that up to one to one which is what was required at the time you have to provide one by one and state no more than that and the commission approved the one to one parking and the staff evaluated this against the rincon hill rezoning and one of the facility issues with rincon hill it changed the parking requirement and .5 half parking space for each dwelling unit and up to one to one you needed to do it in a more space economically means by valet, etc. while it was not in the appellants brief they have other examples which i reentd in our brief that are comparable the new examples that were brought

many of them are rincon hill that was approved that allows they have valet parking and unfortunately, they didn't provide those examples in their original breech so the rincon hill allows requires the parking at the time of the planning commission hearing it was evaluated against the requirement of the rincon hill zoning that was at one to one if they could have done that under the proposed rincon hill but need to do that as valet parking and the response attorney for the applicant at the hearing given the size of building it would be unfeasible to do mechanical or valet parking that was said that will not be feasible absolutely not feasible to do valet parking they

represented that in 2005 one of the factors that went into the commission and project the building was deladle in 2014 the economic crisis we went through and while the permits were issued before the rincon hill rezoning the rezoning district i'll make no claim not regulated by the rincon hill in our belief the adoption of rincon hill process there was specific exemption provisions this is not one of them while they, build the project as under the previous zoning like in the other building in san francisco might have been legally constructed bus but under the rincon hill zoning they'll like

to be one to one parking the building was built when they, do with a conditional use authorization this is our position nyu with that and again, the planning commission very clearly reviewed this and had an eir that was analyzed with the one to one parking no reference to any additional parking again, the sponsor stated that they couldn't exceed that or at least not have the valet parking the commission preferred they had maybe the same number of parking spaces but have less activation rather than doing the 3 stories of parking below grade i think that is straightforward our determination the conditional use process and while they incline to off something beneficial for the community

that is something the requirement of the planning commission to judge and need a conditional use authorization i'm available for any questions thank you. >> to the letter of determination is really a shortcut to get away from the conditional use - what you consider a more proper direction that is conditional use application. >> certainly the appeal of it certainly they have their argument why they shouldn't be subject to this requirement yes. >> you know in the discussions on i believe the previous report they analyzed the parking versus valet it talked about a couple of other projects in the general area where they said they could have put in from the parking was

60 they could have put in 80 or one hundred valet spaces with the correlation the valet number of spaces was the moment they'll be allowed to put on that. >> which - which staff analysis because it in the appellants brief they submitted motions we left in the brief not relevant. >> part of discussion in the overall case report for the this specific site. >> point me to the page perhaps. >> that's all right. let's continue hearing and - >> all right. thank you. >> next. >> one more question in my experience whether that is

building residence for commercial hotels 88 spaces means 8 cars is that your general - >> yes. >> one spaces means one hundred cars. >> absolutely am i being naive. >> i'm agreeing they're asking to park more than cars what they've approved. >> i mean there is an argument let's talk about the vehicles we're using for parking so. >> your point they feel this is strongly for the conditional use process and practicing prove our point and this is short cutting it. >> a quick follow-up then the idea you allow more cars your encourageing more cars to drive.

>> that's one of the reasons for rezoning and downgrading rather than a minimum to discourage this. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, rebuttal. >> thank you vice president and members of the board david counsel for the appellant and really quibble want to apologize for bring up those additional projects didn't have those at the time we submitted our belief i can appreciate the questions about the policy of discouraging cars and i can appreciate the concern about this being a shortcut of the conditional use process but what we're seeking here tonight is a clarification of rights that that property owner has under the law

again, the codes that applied to this project at the time the city approved that project and the city specifically said that code applies it didn't limit cars it only limited parking spaces and allowed with the have a seaty parking i'll read you from section the one 51 cited in the approval planning code one 51 requires one parking spaces that allows up - the regulations that were in effect at the time and the approval that the city gave to this prorn property owner give the property owner certain rights again, i appreciate the concern about the conditional use permit but that will be similarly unfair to require the property owner to go through a process that the law didn't require the pertaining to undertake but achieve a right

that the property owner already has in the law as that employs to this project i completely agree with mr. sanchez if we have an approval starting today that will be subject to the plan today this is not a new approval but to clarify and verify and confirm the property rights this applicant objected in 2005 and pesticide through the years i can appreciate the thoughts that spaces should equal cars the code didn't see is that and now the codes says that back then means something that was not simply an oversight they moved in 2005 to fix it a couple of other quick points the original

approval expressly allows this parking garages to accommodate cars of non-resident so the approval for the planning commission recognized if residents didn't use the pashlgz others from the community might users it was recognized then that at least a semi public parking garage and with that, i'll thank you for your time i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> yes, thank you. >> i guess the question why is it coming up now, did that occur to the owners they have an additional revenue source it seems like this can be clarified at the quinn. >> yeah. a couple of thoughts open that it was the intention back in 2005 and it was not well prosecuted by the applicant and not well documented in the staff

report the applicant understandings they have 88 spaces and can use oversees for motorbikes and this project because of the economy didn't open up until 2014 we started this process regarding the valet parking in at least 2015 if not 2014. >> not long after the new rules were adopted for rincon hill and no question about that no question we're not seek a new approval for the applicant thought they have that all along and got a notice that was a commercial parking space or parking garages and here we are. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez.

>> the parking allows for parking one for one and having too many parking spaces that the commission would said you can only have 88 parking spaces but put one thousand how many cars we care about the stripes that's just a complete misrepresentation of this process that's been through further and a little bit frustrating they're not completely read in the section of the parking it notes as part of section one 15 allows one .5 that's assertsy use and the sections that is the rincon hill special use district subject to again in the appellants own belief states that requires one

space per unit and no more and a full section in the appellants brief and contrary that veery parking didn't apply beyond why the appellants say and it is in their brief it clearly says in the special use district it didn't apply their misrepresenting that and i think that is quite clear what the code allows their more than welcome to seek the conditional use authorization but through this process i can't condone going around what the planning commission approval very contrary what the rules states with the planning code so i with all due respect i respectfully ask you to uphold it as well. >> mr. sanchez it is commonly

used to try to get this we've seen this many times. >> i'm putting my planning hat on is there now a parking demand in rincon hill. >> i mean i'll assume this is to be made by the property owner. >> i understand but at least from a planning side is there approval on this. >> i can't speak to the analysis there is an increase in demand what is shown here but i'm sure a demand for parking people cruz in this elsewhere and parking here and getting out of their vehicles and going to work and it is true the motion contemplated that the idea you'll have one to one parking

and not all the spades are utilized it establishes now more widespread use that's a provision now. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> would you like to start. >> not really. >> i defer to my colleagues. >> well, you know, i think coagulate through the conditional use process will give the project sponsor what we want to achieve here but give consideration and evaluate everything more fully

you know my personal interpretation was i share with the zoning administrator that the number of parking spaces authorized at the time of a permit is the number of cars that are going to go into the building that's always been the intent where i'm right or wrong or indifferent not make the claim but feel more comfortable what i consider the proper channels and go through a conditional use hearing and determine that rather than taking it, it, it is surely on 88 then i will still deny the appeal because my belief that 88 means 88; right? i'll rather deny the appeal for the purposes of going through the conditional use hearing so the project

sponsor will get a fuller and broader hearing on the subject. >> i'm of a similar opinion although not necessarily because i would recommend going through the cu process that is before us this will be costly in the city and i don't think it is necessarily will be successful for the same reasons that we're faced with in terms of the discussion tonight that say that i concur with the appellant that the rincon doesn't apply to the project i think i'm going to the 3 questions that the appellant raised i'll disagree that will be a yes answer which relates to

both definitions of parking spaces the definition of what it is veery spaces i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> neither am i. >> make a motion to deny the appeal based on. >> there was no error. >> yes. >> perfect. >> okay on the motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold did letter of determination. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner wilson that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to a zero and we'll call the next item item number 9 to the jurisdiction request asking whether the board shall hear the excavation in the public

right-of-way with the installation of new cabinets issued by san francisco public works to sbe engineering at 1157 church streets in 2016 at 315 and issued on november 1st and 16 plus at 21st 03 haight street and another one i don't have the number issued for 398 carl street on november 2016 the board received letters from the engineering and san francisco public utilities commission requesting those appeals are dismissed to dismiss the appeals their 16, danish one 60 and 759

and before we begin i believe that commissioner lazarus. >> i'll recuse myself i have a clrlt. >> do we need to vote on that. >> no. >> can i. >> so we are going to hear this a one item and each the queries will be given 3 minutes to address the board and the permit holder will be given 15 minutes the combination of those minutes together and also the department will be given 15 minutes we'll start with the requester for the first case. >> before you start it up madam director, can you explain to the audience a sort of

unwritten policy off the board with respect to having all 3 together. >> absolutely this type of item requires 4 votes to grant jurisdiction one member that is recused and one absent if there are 3 votes and a missing members vote will make a difference in the outcome the board will vote to continue to allow the commissioner an opportunity to participate not jeopardize with a missing vote okay. we'll start q with the tongues request and building there are people here. >> before we begin i wonder we might be able to clarify what vote is required here is this a vote to dismiss the appeal by the board or vote to make

jurisdiction by the board. >> the vote to make jurisdiction. >> thank you and i see no rebuttal as well. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioner fung ryan patterson for the appellant this is a pretty unique and interesting situation with the litigations that the appellant only became aware of notice from the board very recently inappropriate or incorrect things were done by at at&t a run through of the timeline in may of 2013 at&t applied for a number of permit to install those refrigerator sized boxes

dpw at at&t appealed to the board the board upheld it and at&t then went to court in the meantime in 2014 the board of supervisors unanimously impacted infected that imposes the new requirement for those types of utility boxes can i have the overhead? i have additional copies those requirements are vegetation around the boxes and allowing murals and producing the fact and the next year the prior permit denial and in order that the prior permits be granted a year later july 2016 at&t went to dpw and asked for prediction to install a different type of

utility box with new technology dpw issued new permits and a different type of box and at&t failed to put notice in october of 2016 because of 3 failure dpw issued new permits and a few days later the appellant filled the appeal on november 7th the court ordered it dismissed because that was erroneous that the appeal was filed late and at&t went ahead and built the box with an appeal pending without an active permit so the court ordered the permit appealed but still has not - at&t built the box anyway and what is worse built it in front of any clients home they built it at 1159 please we requested

this before to at least have two conditions and understanding first, the ordinance 15 applies and this box is built in the wrong location without an active permit thank you for your time. >> okay. from the next requester mr. kelly. >> good evening members of the board of appeals on behalf of the neighbors of thirty and california i ask that you continue to have jurisdiction over the appeal of the excavation permit in 2013, the neighbors protested the proposed location on october 23, 2013, we met with

at&t and dpw and at&t agreed the box should be on california street at&t shouldn't have appealed the location of the box on 6672 california when the courts reversed the board of appeals decision should have gone back to court to have the box set on california street i ask the board to treat the 30th avenue permit as its own case nothing in previous plans by at&t addresses the specific case of 6723 california street the only occasion to appeal this permit occurred when dpw issued the permit this november the board of appeals accepted this appeal no court has specifically

changed that. >> since 2013 we have told at&t the proposed location was wrong it is at&t and dpws duty to listen to the neighbors and act in their best interests we have to live with this now utility box the reason at&t selected the location is because the closet spot on california street is in ceqa the selection of the 30th avenue location is in the mid block so, please accept the jurisdiction of this thank you. >> we'll hear from the gonzales family now. >> hi good evening members of

the board i'm frank gonzales i'll be speaking on behalf of my father and mother so we're here to address as citizens the right to appeal when there was an external issue within our property 5 years ago my family and i received a letter from at&t suggesting to sell a piece of our land to but that in a implicit we relied and said we're not interested 6 months later they sent us the same proposal in 2015 informing us at&t installed to apply for a box by laurel street by our street at the time my father went to sf public works and told them to didn't want another

cabinet next to his property we have two already can i have the overhead? we have one here underground and we also have one next to the truck whether the stop sign is and now the new one right where the back telephone pole is. >> plus for those poles right here. >> so it is a lot. >> forevermore at&t and public works organized a meeting with any father and neighbors out u outside of our how's everyone was against the proposal my father suggested other options to in all the cabinet in other

locations that don't grillage on perimeter of our property, however, after a few months get a letter from sf public works at&t didn't get the permit to install the cabinets on 2016 we received a letter from at&t to let us know they've appealed the decision and or the sf public works to give them the permit arguing they'll install a smaller cabinet we don't want another combnlt around our house at the time we've never had an opportunity to address the comments with respect to the court that gave at&t the permits we strongly believe that when they issued the permit automobile all parties involved should be present not just for at&t in the court thank you.

>> thank you the next request requester. >> good evening my name is diane my family owns the building at 21 through plus haithd at&t installed their cabinet on their property starting october 21st one day before the excavation permits were in effect i want to you to correct an unjust with the action to dismiss our appeal in 2014 when at&t piloted the denial with the permit for the location of haight street to the board of appeals they argued

that filipino the rule of regulations and not the guidelines therefore at&t must abide by the guidelines they are recommended to the court they've come applied they have not the dpw order requires at&t identify 3 locates including city owned property through public records i objected applications for the address of the list on the 2015 court order i requested that 2 i received thirty locations of those locations at&t met the requirement 7 times and i do not have the company documents and at&t claims that for a s ms no

feasible location exist i ask do for the application for locates where cabinet war installed one application for a document in which at&t states multiple stories and multi unit and no assessable site easements that information is false earlier today, i located 3 locations one in the front and side for the s ms i took photos if anyone wants to see that there are 4 possible private easement locations and potentially 3 for - in addition i'll ask dpw staff member when an applicant states in their application that dpw does that

look at the validity of the statement they'll consider the requirement so it appears that at&t has my likely mislead the court and the court may have resolute differently there's - >> finish your thoughts ma'am. >> okay. there's evidence that at&t has acted in bad faith for those those reasons i respectfully ask the board of appeals to deny at&t request. >> thank you. we'll hear from the comments from the hoa commenters.

>> may lee wong board member and my name is curtis chang. >> speak into the microphone please. my name is ernest chang resident wear i guess at&t has built a box by my window. >> right and as the previous appealers mentioned we got no, no opportunity to against this even if we've appealed the first time when they came out and they came out and meet with the neighborhoods and did give them several other places they can place the box and the one they choose they said that the fire department said that was a fire lane even though two fire fences we told

them to put the box on, on our property we have one box already on the property why they cannot change the one box and incorporate and take into account both of those things i understand this is theoretically so they can bring what is that there as light speed. >> yeah. the light they're new technology onto the property but they put this box right in front of his house and also at the absolute narrow it part of sidewalk wider part on the other side of the street and we understood we we heard from the city there are conduits under

the street they talk about this is a concrete street which it is but those people on the other side of the street get all of their services and they go through there there are conduits and as far as i can tell not consider molten besides this site we gave them and got someone to say it is a fire line lane since fences on both end i do not see to mention it is fairly narrow. >> i want to add because since i live right the box. >> is there time up gary. >> a quick statement, sir. >> a lot of time buses

breakdown in front of my home and have people on the train and that totally makes it clog you know no room for anyone to walk you have people staying around they're waiting for a bus and then the back of the bus let's say 7 or 8 buses after that so a complete traffic jam in front of any house the sidewalks is so narrow who can walk it is ridiculous. >> all right. thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners my name is ann i'm speaking on behalf of the permit holder at&t. >> the issue here is jurisdiction and i appreciate

everyone being here late i realize this is a issue from san mateo perspective trying to upgrade the communication equipment for years it is made consumers suffer and you know it is exhausted all legal affordable housing bonus program at issue we have 80 a court order directing this board this is a respondent in the underlying lawsuit to dismiss the pending appeal as to the property permits and we apply for other appeals so you know i'll address the specific concerns raised by not loss focus we have a court order from 13r0ishg9 court not appealed a final order the

appeal from this board be in effect and controlling for the other 4 locates at issue and at&t fully agrees that the department of public works they've so forth in their were active briefs demeanor i don't want to belabor that and a obviously a register at&t receives the writ that ordered the department to issue the permit among many others because of way the technology advanced the cabinet that at&t wanted to place are smaller more quieter and had better technology so the the city vigorously opposed us when we got the motion to enforce the

writ and got the court order motion in addition directed the court to dismiss the appeal i'm happy to go into more background but this is the second time before the board i believe if there are questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i just want to address some of the comments earlier particularly you know this is a clear-cut case i think that was mr. patterson spoken the appellants i think donated that at&t was in could haves and the have nots with the city and

other people raised things 2, 3, 42013 or 2014 that was under the umbrella of the court order for 2015 they be issued bus the department of public works has to use their discretionary and at&t has issues regarding the cover of the cabinet and not really at issue here if there are those kinds of issues can be raised to the department of public works and that's all i have if any questions. >> are you finished with our presentation. >> yes. >> questions commissioners. >> i have a question the appeal applied to a permit issued for 1157.

>> uh-huh. >> but the appellant are indicating it is not placed there it is placed at a different address. >> i don't think that is correct but an issue to take up with the discussion not this board. >> thank you we'll hear from the department now. >> do i get a rebuttal or. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> you have time if you want to - you should use it now you have no rebuttal in the hearing request. >> thank you. >> good evening amanda with public works for the reasons stated in our public works brief

we unfortunately building this board didn't have jurisdiction to hear this appeal these applications stem back to 2012 when at&t first applied for excavation permits for the sites at this point ordinance 7614 which infected the article 27 was not in effect at this point public works issued the responsibilities under excavation permits under public works order the one 7566 public works denied all the applications in 2014 at&t appealed the denied to this board and the board upheld public works permits. >> substantial in 2015 at&t

filed a petition with the san francisco superior court for a mandate the superior court is a state court and has superior jurisdiction over rules the city and county of san francisco the superior court arrested the city to issue the excavation permit that public works had previously denied after the writ at&t approached public works to allow the institution of the cabinet for a instead of a large model wanted to install a smaller cabinet ultimately the director of public works agreed to allow the substitution and public works issued the excavation permit after the permit saw the appeal the first of appeals for the permits at&t filed a motion but with the san francisco superior court asking the court to enforce the mandate

although the city opposed the writ to enforce the mandate the court agreed with at&t that the installation of the smaller cabinet was okay. and ordered the appeal to be dismissed the reasons for ordering the submittal of 16 one san francisco applied with equal force and shout outs board accept the jurisdiction of this case at&t will file similar motions point superior court and the court will issue compatible orders in terms of the appellant claims we've heard the box was installed at the wrong location quinn with the first excavation permit in 2013 and also in the current excavation permit under

consideration here the cabinet location has residential consistent throughout the process the permit itself didn't list turk street or denying or 11 turk street that lists the street treatment that is church street from 24th street and in terms of notification required for the utility excavation permit the only requirement that the permit holder post the construction signs 72 hours prior to starting construction not requiring public works to or the applicant to send out innovations to interested appellants hover in the case of the appeals public works did e-mail the folks right to appeal the second writ from the superior court and i'll be here if you have any questions thank

you. >> it our compatriot want to say anything he's been sitting here all night. >> we can take public comment please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners i'm the next door of the appellant 2011 61 i live on church street and want to quickly respond to who two things i've heard first can i have the overhead, please? and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. that would be helpful. >> as i understand this is - thank you. >> this is a copy listing the number of the utility excavation

permits and the address a clearly - the project is supposed to be at 1157 church street. >> mr. patterson earlier mentioned while this appraisal is pending at&t went ahead and installed a utility cabinet not in front of 1157 church street 1157 church street is this building the cabinet is in front of my living room window i was not properly notified of this and had i been perhaps i would have known to possibly

entering queen so i feel i never had a proper notice of that impactful thing in front of my house that's all. >> how long have you lived there. >> sorry. >> i think 5 or 6 years now thank you. >> any other public comment. >> sorry. >> i was asking if other public comment. >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you know the original 32 the denial by the department was lick the yellow brick rode; right? >> my concern is that because of what occurred i believe all of us were here.

>> not me and not rick were here at that particular time i'm not sure that the appellant got their day in court because of how that process was working there's no disagreement then what with what the court order says that is quite clear with respect to one case not clear in my mind by presuming we will know that the argument and the objection is the same as previously to allow the court decision on that one case at a time a little bit of an issue

but having been throw by the utilities too much times to remember you know i'm not also wanting to you know create not only additional issues for the citizens in terms of their time and in a situation it will be difficult given the fact that the utilities are ma ticks and winning against us every time. >> am i correct that the board - that the city argues that the

residents didn't get the opportunity to appeal this permit this was something the court. >> mined the city didn't mention that in their papers as. >> and the court was not per swayed. >> right. >> my concern is the same always commissioner fung i believe and also it was just supported by the unknowingly by the city attorney is that the superior court i believe equally with commissioner fung that maybe the appellants didn't get their day in court but i wasn't there and am sympathetic, however, with that said there was a day in court

that the position was taken by the city that the appellants were for the fully heard the superior court strongly made a decision on all but one case my feeling is that although we could take jurisdiction on this we spent a lot of time and money and make the lawyers rich and end up in the - probably unfortunately make that statement in the same place this is what is facing me work bother the court has made its position very, very clear the financial issue will be the same and find in the same way i'm sympathetic

to the appellants i think the approval is satisfied. >> i'm leaning towards that direction. >> would you like to planning commission make a motion. >> i feel for the appellants i would ask the board to consider refunding them their appeal fees on the basis that the court has changed the tenure of the process. >> i'll be sympathetic to that. > in the first case there was a crux of two conditions to deny it on church; right? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to. >> i think that mr. patterson

requested two findings. >> right. >> that's for one ways was that which law applies i don't see that the board is in a position to do that and the board won't have jurisdiction. >> i remember that one but obviously any ordinance by the city we're bound by that. >> yeah. >> it is reference to that revised ordinance. >> the initial court order on the writ makes the opposite findings they're not subject to that they were issued before the ordinance took effect. >> okay. >> the court in the most recent orders the permit are not

the ones they've ordered a i'm going to move to not grant jurisdiction and to note that the appeal fees b be refund to the 5 appellants. >> vice president would you consider also adding it to the motion the 5 appeals need to be dismissed. >> yes. i think i am. >> okay. >> and the basis is the court order. >> yeah. >> okay so the motion then from the vice president to deny the jurisdiction dismiss them and have the boards refund the filing fees on the basis of court order on that commissioner

lazarus is recused and commissioner wilson and commissioner fung that item passes and vice president. >> there's no further business. >> this meeting is thank you.

>> for km my name is ed reiskin i'm the director of transportation in to san francisco and absolutely delighted to be joined by u.s. secretary of transportation andrew's and mayor ed lee and some other smart and committed people to announce and celebrate the grant award of $11 million from the u.s. department of transportation to san francisco to help us do some of the things most important things we do in the city first make sure that

people can get around more safely and move people inefficiently and fewer vehicles and really try to groundbreaking hinges in a new development in treasure island on the corner of that map really bringing that kind of innovation through 24 grant with really groundbreaking stuff and fit well with the three is where the get over the finish line was we have a mayor that has been a strong leader and currently innovation and collaboration and that's really what that arrogant problem about call about we're honored and humbled to be a recipient of this grant i think that rehabilitates a lot about the current administration and u.s.

department of transportation when president obama announced andrew fox as his nominee to be secretary of transportation we knew immediately that that would bowed well, for cities and for the whole crisis andrew fox was the mayor of charlotte and they knew each and everyone of each other there the conference the mayors and a progressive great work in that he is city in charlotte for transportation and more general that he will serve us well in d.c. he understand what happens on the ground in the city he also brought to the job a great passion for equity and creating opportunity for people in recognizing that transportation is really a big part of that and extremely important here in san francisco more so than it's ever been and a strong focus on safety and also a it up priority here in

san francisco with vision zero now almost 3 years ago in the city to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024 but i would like to see most revolutionsy a approach that may sound shocking the federal government didn't have all the answers and this grant program and the smart city challenge we're seeing he really took the federal grant process and flipped it on its head and a attribute to the secretaries leadership to say hey, we don't dr. all the answers and a lot going on the ground rather than telling you what to do we need you to tell us what the goals and equity and safety and collaborate across the city to improve the outcomes for people if you're city and region through the smart city challenge

and there this grant program that is changed. >> the way we partnered between local and federal government and we have a long history of the partnership and great infrastructure project with the subway and the van ness brt and the geary brt also some innovation and technology partnership that is sf park this one really is different approach and really a testament to our secretary of transportation i think history will reflect that he will be one of the best to serve in that capacity we were incredibly howard to have him in san francisco please help me welcome director of transportation andrew fox >> anthony and he had thank you for the wonderful introduction it is also great to be back in the bay area with the great friends friend of mine mayor ed lee who has demonstrated so much

leadership on so many issues in particular transportation and we'll talk about some of that today also has been in the bay area for about 48 percent hours and suffice to say ii see the evidence of the tremendous congestion ♪ region and if you were in the jelly making business i'll have a big jar of traffic jam (laughter) and let me say this is part of the 21st century challenge of transportation in america >> you're in one of the faster growing regions in the country if not the faster and a dime economy and problems of transportation are not just related to you know a lack of

attention to trying to move things along it is actually, the fact that growth is outpacing our ability to build the infrastructure to solve our problems and if i might just depart what i was intending to say parts of that is the fact at the federal level so much of our transportation policy and fund has been built around building these testimonies systems and the challenge of 21st century is integrating those systems and making the systems work better together and really if that context that the u.s. department of transportation for at least the last 8 years has been focused on trying to help our nation through our communities understand that we need a more demand driven transportation system by that i mean rather

than dictating to the country how transportation is to be practiced from place to place giving communities more flexibility giving them more resources. >> allowing them to shape the vision themselves because frankly the challenges here in the bay area are different than in the midwest and different in other place we need the flexibility we're a big country and need to practice transportation definitely than place to place understanding we're proud of the fact we launched the smart city challenge, a challenge that really did turn on its head the typical grant making process what folks will say about that the secretary walked into a conference room and said we want to do this they want to frng

what they were looking for we'll know it when we see 2 we saw great things in san francisco and we preceded to go through 24 process and in the process with the advances litigation congestion granted san francisco was hugely competitive that's why we're awarded the money inform this project here so let me get back to what i was supposed to say the as a matter of fact of the matter is we need to leverage the kelly whitcraft had help us reduce the congestion and during or doctoring my time we've been focused on innovation we've been inclusively ways to empower san francisco to repeat technologies frankly you were doing this on our own anyway we were here in the convenient last year federal

government to help and to address transportation issues you see everyday in the same vein flo the field for initiative approaches to advance transportation technology for example in december a vehicle to vehicle mauvent all light rail to be equipped with technology to communicate directly with each other on the roads and released the most advanced set of safety rules advance in the world i'm sorry this is unmanned aircraft systems or drones what i was going to say to top it off we've proutsd the first of its kind for ammonias vehicles 2, 3, 4 is the most comprehensive policy that the world produced and precedence setting in the sense we're setting out the

ground work for the he will technology systemthorax in october we announced $65 million in advanced technology transportation grant to help the cities across the country fight the congestion and encourage the market those grants will build on the smart city challenge the challenge asked the cities across the country what they need to improve their systems and few limitation in giving us that feedback in response we received applications for more than 78 cities and our goal with this round the application grant we want to make that easier for local areas to test new ytdz and reach beyond about what was deny to meet the challenges we know we'll face in the future and so we provided almost $12 million to san francisco to support a number of projects

to encourage ride sharing and carpooling and making that better by having pickup curve for the riders and helping to deploy smart connecting traffic to make intersections safer for people riding bikes now separate and apart what did you do by nearly $360 million for the demand on - that will connect public and private transportation options all of those are p.o. box san francisco to be one of the most connected cities at a time when the infrastructure continues to be stressed that's why it is too important we need to test in the 21st century solutions to those issues i should also is that maybe to conclude that mayor ed

lee knows when cities come up with good solutions to problems overtime they get replicated elsewhere so we are trying very o vertically to user laboratories to helpful see some of the greatest efforts represent indicated in other parts of country so mayor ed lee i want to thank you and the entire region for your leadership, and thank you for continuing to push the vision vision for transportation to its growing edge shall we say. >> thank you for continuing to help us help you by giving us great things to work on together and looking forward as partners to help with that collaboration well into the future thank you.

>> (clapping.) >> thank you, mr. secretary that needs to give a flavor of the new and better way of the federal government looking to partner with us with regards to taking things that are employed in the city with the replication sf park and a opportunity pilot a pricing for that concludes my remarks that led to a significant reduction in congestion and their green house gas emissions made it easier for people to find a way for parking that is now becoming a standard across the country and that kind of innovation happening can be invested and replicated across the country within the spirit of that grant the secretary mentions that the congestion in the city i was hoping he wouldn't that is something that the mayor talks about i'm trying

to tell him congestion is a good thing it is healthy but he remind me too much can have adverse safety impacts and start to make that harder for people to get around for work and education can help start to restrict the ability for the growth it has so some of the tools ♪ grant will help us address that or challenge we're having to make the streets safer at the same time, we have great leadership from the mayor among his tasks to nominate the directors for the municipal transportation agency and we're happy to be joined by our charm of the board of directors tom and their leadership inform our agency that positions you guess and the rest of the city to be

competitive for this grant first place i wanted to acknowledge they're great leadership by the mayor has done a lot for transportation and the task force brought in half a million dollars to invest in that infrastructure as the secretary talked about and most of all helps to us partner outside of government and that leadership is also positions to us to be a contender please join me in welcoming mayor ed lee >> (clapping.) >> thank you. good morning everyone and welcome to super public another indication of the way we're doing things in san francisco but we're part of a whole region let me take the opportunity to thank our friend secretary fox thank you to you, your leadership and you know as

i was listening to the secretary talk not just about the grant but looking at him and thinking years ago when president obama suggested more than suggested he said we had to be covered from the economic disasters when he first started started to make critical investments transportation has been the center whether borrowing that clicks on the president was there along with leader pelosi working closely with our city and making sure we utilities those federal funds appropriately to get jobs done and start talking about the center of our city and how we might be prepared for economic recovery even better and look was has happened 2, 3, 4 did 8 years and it is not just because we want economic activities i think there is a dramatic movement of people who want jobs

and better life to move into the city and they're coming regardless of whether you want to put the welcome mat or not people are looking for that better life but happening in all the cities in the bay area and across the country and secretary has observed and visited chinatown and part so i say that in the sense he really want to say thank you to a former mayor to a friend to secretary who literally is here from the first welcome back to the last week of his tenure to be in the city i know he's appreciated for a variety of reasons and die is no exception we're here super public because we heard is not just the support from the

secretary the administration we literally known that his folks at the fta are writing the transportation systems personally experiencing what day to day people are talking to us about so they can say oh, this is what you are experiencing and this is work you need those funds and not just a complaint about suggestions but a direction of finding solutions as reflective we don't need those things on the singular city and fda grant it is bribl everyone together so that's why super public has been a model with academia and leadership where the county is involved and technology leaders are involved and their data is confirmed own

mta and county transit experts can all congregate to make sure not only we're using does the federal funds the way it is directed bull bringing in the extra juice of folks that are going to be thinking in the future and shouldn't surprises you, we were getting a smart is city grant but shouldn't surprise you we're not independent on a single grant but commitment committed to make sure our city and region continues to be answering the challenge the congestion but i also think two this is what the added value of that we have - when we were by the obama effects to come up with better solutions i'm specifically happy about something that was done a couple of years ago back the mta

said in response to not just technology not just the transit who are we serving as well but tailor have been documented disparities who the transit system serves and so in that muni equity strategy i've provide the mta adopted identified a lot of community not serves when you are not served you not going to a participation and dialogue how electric autonomous electrical vehicles help the community impoverished for any years you want to have a policy and system that serves everybody that brings even up so the growth strategy was as important as the

newest introduction of technology and how it will help everyone when you combine all that you get the attention of the president and the discreet and the attention of our fta administrator and the leaders please san francisco is paying attention to everything and all aspects of improving everyone's life and using transit agency a way to get things down that's why i celebrate not just the grant of $11 million but the hundreds of millions of we've been fortunate to receive we have not only national leadership that paid attention but people's life experience like former mayor fox that understood from the first minute how those challenges are to every city that's why we work closely they incentiveed by challenging us through the smart

grant to do it better that's why out of all the entities that came together the bart and community bart next year i think we're doing it right we're answering those questions i think we're having the dialogue and the inclusionary policies that will make our city better for everyone this is y what i came to office to try to do and thankful for the leadership as director reiskin and the county of transportation agency are putting together all the detergents so we could eat less of traffic jam and more of the peanut butter (laughter). >> and take the opportunity on the last few weeks of his leadership to say thank you secretary to our leadership those are years we'll look back

we've done things well and got the support and leadership of president obama and the capitol hill not only not just the money but what we've created out of the opportunities that bring this city and entire region together this is what i think those federal divisions are all about not just fund transit projects but bring people together to make sure that crying country was moving together with everybody that's why i'm particularly provide of the the way the incentiveed program and others have allowed us to simplify our humanity respect for the improvement of transit and solve problems and insure that everyone is included for a better city on behalf of the city and county of san

francisco secretary thank you hopefully, you'll be back negative impact a different capacity with an that will continue to compliment us and as you ride our transit systems when you do get here they'll be adequately improved with a level of intelligence and smartness so that this year whereby less jams and more peanut butter . >> (clapping.) >> you could hear from the former mayor and secretary this deep commitment to equity i think reflects the ideals they've brought to the public service and really has been integrate in the work they local level with the transportation to make sure that it provides an

opportunity for folks to take part what we hope to achieve ♪ grant you heard a lot about the clorox of the regional and federal level i want to acknowledge the administrator of the transit not only leaving the fta but a career transit professional and a frequent transit rider that helps us to make the case what are the transit across the country a great partner but and the sfmta office as well and in the region the mayor made reference to a member of bart the board of directors and doctor from uc berkley two of the smarter folks in the region of the country how to make transportation better here so a lot of brain power in the room and region we work together and make that happen

part of brain power from the county of transportation authority they've lead a lot of great groundbreaking work in how to develop the brand new community in treasure island and part of the two of the projects of this grant are focused on treasure island the secretary mentioned the guidance that his administration put out with autonomous vehicles see how 24 fits on the ground of treasure island with the transportation authority under the leadership of the executive director tilly chang >> (clapping.) >> thank you so many ed and secretary fox and mayor ed lee and all of our honored guests thank you so much on behalf of the community of the transportation authority thank you to secretary fox and the mta

for this grant and opportunity to partner and demonstrate the benefits of initiative transportation as the community agency wouldn't be more exciting to initiative with the partners logically and nation wide mr. secretary thank you for your championship and income tax and amongst the cities your leadership with the department of transportation has been nothing short of incredible and mayor ed lee recounted many of the examples you are were about two years ago in february of 2015 going down the 101 to guaranteeing google i believe you unveiled your beyond traffic initiative a national dialogue of the awareness of transportation investment to the need for investment and the crisis of a lake lack of impetus

we see in congress that year we were all seeking to have a long-term transportation bill your messing meg miss included the ways of doing more business efficiently manage congestion to protect the planet and bring all the members of the community as mayor ed lee eloquently mentioned later that year in the fall of 2015 usual administration sent the long term bill to congress as the fast map leader pelosi and other leaders in congress was passed happily by president obama and laid the ground work to advance beyond the transportation all the non-sexy things the transportation and the brightens and transportation as well as the initiative partnering and

this included, of course, particulars marked stirs challenged the faster grant program to administrator in my career with the leadership of mayor ed lee and our partners locally thank you for your grants together with uc berkley we're happy and excited to be a winner of this grant and the finalist we were in the company of 77 other amazing cities who also rays their hands we have a tremendous need this has been a fantastic experience and just the gwen with advanced grant the transportation authority will be working with ed and his team at the sfmta to demonstrate the smart corridors and innovations connected and technologies and as mentioned on treasure island

will be partnering with the treasure island development authority so have a community on treasure island that is planned for 8 thousand units of housing 26 affordable over the next 20 some years our projects will include a powell system to help fund the transit and water and muni and ac bus service as well as autonomous shutters transportation on treasure island really will be a laboratory we look forward to this and with the partners at caltrans and the commission those will transform treasure island and have a robust neighborhood that will be a model of innovation in terms of transportation to demand management and safety and the way we fund those types of

programs through the innovative feature we've advance the secretaries initiative by tying together a town hall transportation system and with the carving and bike share for the most vulnerable residents so thank you and in closing for your administration secretary look forward to the major capital project involving the transit and both downtown and as well as the recent van ness brt project we're fortunate to get $75 million we're ever so grateful and appreciate our support you've extended to all the partners at caltrans for the electrification we wish you the best we want you to come back of all the work in a few years time

thank you . >> (clapping.) >> thanks tilly and thank you for your leadership hers it the public agency and mine and the federal government didn't have all the answers we were shocked to know they didn't have all the answers we're a happy to be joined by part of bringing together the other partners to make that arrogant happen. >> (clapping.) >> thank you i'm probably the most at least competitive and person in front of of the people this morning i didn't realize nicholas was going to be here he was told the trains went to oakland and thank god a lady told me that i don't think anyone would have missed me that's why the room is so

fuel we're thankful and i'll summarize our goal to help the public private partnering with the innovation and as long as we're not locked into a temp we're allowed to work with the private sector and this is part of design methodologies that is built on stanford and uc berkley with all the pilots that's really the work at the 76 projects we're looking at and meaningful second scale across the country we've been lucky that mayor ed lee has for the last two years helped us to create an institution for the public basically the federal government and others getting together and, of course, the uc berkley to actively go out and scale those pilots and that's really been the goal of that

thank you, mayor ed lee we have d.c. and miami and worked with the academic institutions the work with secretary fox with the smart city grants we've been able to beat out many folks as we've become the first institution to help planning out u outside the london to open this so we can intricate the electrical vehicles and we currently have people in the community really engaging the community in miami hey, what does the community want and with the work with ed reiskin and tilly chang in terms of the the work we what pilot those out here and scale them across the u.s. and uc berkley great partners with the people that binge things to the table we can

test thank you, everyone and actually making this a reality and giving us an opportunity to nationalize this we're excited thank you. >> (clapping.) >> so finally just because something is initiative didn't mean it's good much the innovation maybe good and not so good but advancing the policy goals uc berkley brings the research to support what we'll test in the field and our ability to test it to achieve our outcomes and uc berkley for the institute studies leads by dr. >> thank you to secretary fox and mayor ed lee for the opportunity to be here with you this is a very exciting year 2017 is not only our 17

anniversary but also something that people didn't know the 20 anniversary of the first time we have a california, if any, in the context of the federal grants like 20 years ago this break through this was conceives fiction we hope that will be an exciting mitigation grant we can claim the victories two years from now the history of collaboration within the city of san francisco and the university we've seeing none, public comment is closed in memorandum of understanding when was dramatically related by the challenge we are extremely grateful into secretary fox but the university have been collaborating on cities berkley was involved in the snatch and the writing of the mou between the city of san francisco and the city of paris and many -

we're excited today because of the work because it alsoables us to interact with did public university at berkley through this program we really hope to make contributions to the bay area and california to the u.s. and in general, you you look at you'll see the involvement of the universities in the programs whether on the bridge or talking about the tenderloin or all the others things that berkley was involved in with the mtc and caltrans and the federal government specifically the services roll in the program that will be led by susan thank you for your leadership throughout the program and this challenge and many other exciting things the secretary has led in his tenure specific to berkley's contributions in the granted we are excited we're

push the research and the extent those par dims they'll change urban san francisco see is a city of innovation most of technologies the transportation all born no or in san francisco no better place than the city the second involvement of the university for the vision zero corridor that is an extremely important for public transit and more importantly the third is data electrics in the 151 impossible to see the systems that will be operated suv and no better place to do this than the other partners at the table here and uc berkley has the highest concentration of people in the world that as advanced dictated for a den benefit of translation

we're excited about the future of smart cities and at berkley we cared about transfer which we produce in the passerby la habra through the examples throughout this wonderful collaboration with the federal government have successfully approved grant break through these and grateful for the programs we've built no, first in the future so to conclude i want to express my warmest thanks to mayor ed lee and secretary fox they're leadership working together with the federal government to absolutely amazing have a partner a prestige and we're excited in the future to contribute to the partners agencies at the table today microsoft and others and thank you to secretary fox and others. >> (clapping.) >> okay. thanks i'll give a final thank you to secretary fox

for his great service we're short on time maybe time for two consecutive questions and let you on your way the floor is open any questions if not thank you all so much fo

(shouting.). >> more and more city's high san francisco is committing to dislocate to end all traffic death that means improving safety for people walking and driving and safety on our streets is everyone's responsibility people can make mistakes but not result in injury or death all traffic collisions are preventable as drivers you play a large role that will give you the tools to drive safely on streets a recent survey asks hundreds of drivers about save city introduce driving what did they say watch for distracted behavior and slow down and be patient and check for people before you turn the facts about city driving shows how important to be alert

most collisions happen in good weather allowance even at 25 mile-per-hour it takes a vehicle 85 feet to stop this is almost 7 car lengths slowing down makes collisions less savior when a person is hit by a passerby vehicle 25 minor the chance of death is 25 percent 40 percent that increases inform 85 percent slowing down didn't cost much time driving behind a person takes 9 extra semiautomatic and stopping at the yellow light takes only 30 seconds by hitting someone costs you hours and weeks of our time and maybe a life take a deep breath and take

you're time cities cross america are being safely for walking and driving some streets are confusing here's what you need to know all intersection kroukz of novelist marked some are marked to make them more visible other crosswalks and intersections are raised to the level of sidewalk to actress as speed bump and people are maybe crossing be cautious and watch for people when you approach any intersection advanced limit lines and pedestrian yield signs show drivers where people walk and stop behind the lines at stop signs and for people crossing

bulb outs where the sidewalks extends into the street make that tease easy to see pedestrians and remember to slow down whether making reasons and watch for people on sidewalk estimations extensions that maybe closer than you expect and bicyclists may motive to the left to get around bulb outs this gives people a head start allowing pedestrians to enter the crosswalk before transfer starts moving makes them more visible pedestrian scrimmage and stop the vehicles in all directions allow people to cross including department of building inspection scrambles are paired with no light restriction and rapid beacons you turn bright whether the pedestrians are there or the center is activated

precede slowly as you approach the beacons especially, if their activated a pedestrian crossing light turns yellow before turning sold red back to flash red procedure after making a full stop as long as the sidewalk is empty and, of course, stop whenever the light is red traffic circles reduce conflicts you must stop at the strewn and precede around the raise your right hand of the circle watch for people in crosswalks and people in bikes coming around the circle arrows indicate where people with bikes share the intersections and people have ride to people on bikes have the

right to use the lane whether or not in the sharing bike lanes are for people protected by parks e.r. parked cars and stay out of separated bike lanes unless an emergency dashed bike lanes are a shared zone four for vehicles to change lanes slow bike lanes allow the circles their unusually sprayed before me from other traffic some bike lanes are built to the level higher than the street but lower than the sidewalk they provide a safe separated space sponsor cyclists are around vehicles the box areas are marked with the stencil at intersections act as advanced limit lines for people

to garter at a red light this increases the 1r0ir7b9 to drivers people will ride past stopped vehicles at the fronltd of the intersection give them room and stop short of limit line behind the bike without objection and cross only after the green light and people cleared the bike box bicycle traffic lights allow people on bikes to proceed while vehicles are stopped be unaware aware of those bike san francisco general hospital but stay alert and only skrans when the vehicle is cleared the intersection let's take a quiz to see what all of learned here we go number one when do month collisions happen did you say in daytime you're correct

question two if an intersection is not marched is it still a crosswalk yes did you get it right great job one more before we go on what's one of the best things to do to avoid collisions? you can it take a breath pay attention and slow down city streets are crowded and chaotic so seeing everyone every single everything is difficult here's a test how many times did the white team pass the ball? if you answered 11 you're correct but did you notice anything else

also be aware ever you're surrounded and remember that is easy 0 miss something if you're not looking for it here's some basic principles driving near peep e people from you're driver's seat it is difficult address our mirrors to reduce blind spots people on bicycles maybe be in our blind spot give yourselves plenty of time to react look out stay on the road from building to building not just curve to curve check driveways and behind parked vehicles for people that enter our path turning vehicles are especially dangerous important people walking and collisions often occur when vehicles are making tunnels when

you turn remember check for people using the crosswalk before starting you're turn watch for people on bikes traveling in the ongoing direction always check our mirrors and blind spots patience pays off take a moment to make sure you're clear while it might feel you'll save time by driving fast or turning without checking you won't save driving only adds a few semiautomatic to our trip a collision can cost you, your job or someone's live here's important things to remember all crosswalks are legal and pedestrian have the right-of-way people cross the street anywhere children and seniors and people with disabilities are the most vulnerable think city strits give buses and streetcars a lot

of the space or people returning to catch a train don't block the box this creates dangerous situation for people walking how are forced into moving traffic and people bicycling out of the bike lane and people on bikes most city streets are legal for bicyclists even without signs people biking can fall in front of you provide a safe amount of space when passing someone on a bike a minimum of 3 feet is required by law in california and people on bikes prefer to be in the bike lane in for the this is often to avoid accidents give them room people on bikes will stay away

from the traffic or watch out for open doors whoops that was a close one expect people to go to the front of the light and pass on the right a tap of the horn maybe useful to make you're preservation known but avoid using the horn it may saturday night be someone vehicles anybody right turns are especially dangerous important biking always approach right turns properly signal early and wait for people biking through the intersection move as far to the right to people on bikes can pass on the left let's try a few more questions who are the most vulnerable people on city streets? children?

seniors, and people with disabilities why do people on bikes ride close to travel there to avoid car doors what is one of the most dangerous situations for people walking and riding bikes? turning vehicles and what can you do to make sure that everyone is safe in any situation? thartsz stay patient and alert and, of course, slow down parking and loading a vehicle on accredit city streets is a challenge weather parking and unloading always check for people in our mirrors and blind spots and on

the driver's side with our right turn right hand this causes you to look 40 on your left for bicyclists when passersby exiting the vehicle make sure about opening the door know where loading zones are if not loading zones available use side streets never stop in bike lanes or traffic lanes. >> bad weathering and visible rain and fog or low lighting make it hard to see you're vehicle is likely to slide or loss control in eye i didn't controls and create issues for people walking and biking they tried try to avoid pulled and umbrellas and construction get

slippery for people the safety thing to do in conditions whether wet or icy or dark slow down and drive more carefully remember going fast may on this save you a few semiautomatic but speeding may cause you a life or you're job people walking and biking are vulnerable people can be distracted or make unsafe decisions as a driver the responsibility for safety lies with you a collision could mean the loss of our life or you're job and dealing with the legal implementations could take years or an emotional toll if someone is killed in a crash help us achieve vision zero and everyone can use the streets safely. >> thank you for watch and

following the important driving tests your remember we're counting on you regular hearing >> regular hearing for thursday, january 12, 2017, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. sdmifks commissioner vice president richards commissioner hillis commissioner koppel and commissioner moore. >> we do expect commissioners commissioner johnson and commissioner melgar to arrive and commissioner president fong to be a little bit