report, is what the relationship is between those trips and congestion. there are a lot of theories that go around that say that they may improve congestion and there are alternate theories that say they contribute to congestion. that is the question that this report seeks to answer. what exactly is that relationship? so i will talk to you today about what measures we used to define congestion. i'll talk about the data and methods that we used. and then i'll tell you about the results of what we found. so, the ones we used were delay which is basically the extra time that you spend traveling because there are other cars getting in your way on the street. another one is v.m.t. which is a typical metric that we use for all kinds of transportation project analysis.

and then finally, the most legible to the public. so, i'm going to talk briefly a little bit more about those hypothesis about how t.n.c. may interact with congestion. there are several theories about how they could improve congestion. these include that they may have higher vehicle occupancies and so you need fewer cars to transport the same number of people and you may see a decrease in the number of cars on the road and that may help things. alternatively, they may be supportive of transit by providing first and last mile connection that's make it easier to access the transit system. and finally, the available of t.n.c.s may help people feel more comfortable owning fewer cars so they may sell off one of their household vehicles or chose to own no vehicles at all.

so these are some of the reasons that have been floated that t.n.c.s may improve congestion. on the other hand, they may make things worse. the reasons for this are that they, similar to taxis -- [ please stand by ]

>> so what did we find? we found that t.n.c., along all the metrics that we looked at contributed substantially to increased congestion.

around 50% of each of these metrics is attributable to t.n.c. kick, delay is around 50% , meaning that had there been no t.n.c., the increase in delay would be half as much as we actually witnessed. similarly, about half of the increase in vmt, city wide was attributable to t.n.c. and again , half of the decline in speeds was attributable to t.n.c. when you look at this information, broken down over time of day, there is an diverse face. there is a substantial amount of variation. these impacts are not constant across the city in space or time what we are looking at here is delay by five times a day. these times of day correspond with the day. that we use in our model.

and you should note that they're not all all of the same length. the mid-day. , the one in the middle of the chart and the evening. , the one on the end are longer than the other ones. in general, there was a greater increase in congestion in the. in total and more of it was attributable to t.n.c. his. the places where we saw the greatest total increase of congestion are in the mid-day and the evening. this is, not surprising because these time periods are longer so they capture a greater amount of travel. if you look at speeds, you get a similar story. there was a decrease in speeds across all times of day periods and roughly half of it, between 44 and 60% for most of these time of day periods was

attributable to t.n.c. his. this is higher in the evening. about 75% of this. >> i am sorry to wake everybody. what did this cost? this report? >> i don't have that number of the top of my head. >> thank you. >> please go on. thank you. >> thanks. so roughly three quarters of the delay in the evening that we see according to the study is attributable to t.n.c. his. we can also look at the differences and the effects of t.n.c. his across different areas of the city. district six, which is soma and midmarket, it also includes treasure island.

it seems the greatest increase in delay. and nearly half of that is attributable to t.n.c.s. by contrast, district -- district three sees about half the magnitude of an increase in delay but much more of it is attributable to t.n.c.s. nearly 73%. where as, population and employment had a substantial effect on congestion in the soma area and it didn't really affect things in district three which is the north beach area. and then there are other parts of the city that saw very little effects in terms of delay like district four. they saw very little effect. due to t.n.c.s or any other reason. looking at vehicle miles travelled, the story here is similar but with a few differences. again, district six jumps out

here with the greatest increase in miles travelled. district ten, which is a less congested, not uncongested but less conducted -- congested network does not show up as much when we look at delay because of the lowered congestion but you do see it here when looking at v.m.t. which simply measures the amount of travel that is happening. but in this case, it is only contributing about a third of the total. most of what you are seeing here is due to changes in population, housing and network changes. with that, in the interest of transparency and engaging with stakeholders like yourselves and with the public, we developed an interactive online visualization tool that will allow you to drill down to the street segment level on all of the metrics that

are driving this analysis. and you can download the data set that lies under it if you are a researcher or an employee. as i mentioned at the beginning, this is a second of a series of reports. our agency will be working next on a report looking at t.n.c.s and transit ridership and equity we are also working with the sfmta who is working on studies including ones looking at street safety and curb access and disabled access. >> thank you so much mr cooper. that is fascinating to look at. he really lets us know that when we hear from people, all they see our t.n.c.s. in certain neighbourhoods of the increase in traffic they see is really greatly attributable to the t.n.c. it kind of brings it all in to

show that the impact is different across the city but where it looks not so bad in one neighbourhood, it's very disproportionate, and people are seeing a horrible impact. i find it frustrating because i know there is so little that we here can do. but the point of these reports, to the question that director torres asked about the cooperative -- the cost of them, the point of the report is to inform other state agencies about what is going on and help take action. >> that's right. there are a few things that we hope will happen. one, we have been commentating with the cpuc who is going through a rule-making process, encouraging them to use the data that they have and share it with local planning officials. we also just hope that getting this information out there will

help people understand decision-makers, most importantly, understand that this is a real issue that needs to be taken seriously. so our agency was just bored, who also happens to be the board of supervisors, has brought up the idea of going to the state and requesting additional authorities to regulate. >> there are some aspects of t.n.c.s that can be addressed at the local level already. most directly, the curb management. >> it points out how important that is. do i have questions? >> great. thank you for this report. i was reading through it and trying to get to the bottom and looking for recommendations. sort of like he put out all this interesting information and here we are, policymakers, looking at what we should do.

there is no section on policy recommendations in the port -- in the report but i wanted to hear your thoughts. i also heard you say you'll be doing t.n.c.s and transit ridership as the next study. but we have to imagine a 50% increase is affecting our service transit vehicles in a negative way and they wonder if you can folk -- comment on a pulmonary way on the impacts on transit of t.n.c.s. >> sure. thank you for those questions. with regards to recommendations, we were very intentional about not putting them in this report. we wanted this to be, again, grounded in facts, objective, and neutral. and what we hope is that policy makers can take what we have put out there and use it to develop reactions. with support from staff, of course. but we see that as a next step.

with regards to the effects of t.n.c.s on transit, again, we have forthcoming work on this subject. there has been a growing body of literature that shows that t.n.c.s tend to take people off of transit. and this report shows that they had to add to congestion to the extent that buses and trains, particularly those operating on the street, are subject to congestion. it affects them as well. >> i know you said this wasn't about recommendations at this point, but i was wondering if the t.a. was reexploring or talking about the issue of congestion pricing. i know it is a study goshen area we looked at before before we had the traffic and congestion issues we had today given the limitations of the state level and what we can do. it is something that we could do is not something that is being

contemplated are considered particularly when you talk about district three, which is downtown. it had a huge rise in congestion >> yes. our board has directed us to look at congestion pricing and we are working on developing a scope for that project now. >> so what is the timeline on something like that? >> i am not prepared to say. >> ok. [laughter] >> thank you. >> any more questions or comments before i go to public comment? >> one more thing if no one else wants to speak, other cities have looked at a fee on the transportation network companies , but mostly my understanding is that it is compensate for a bit of the loss in transit revenues as opposed to a congestion management approach on the t.n.c.s. given the recent bill that was passed this year that will authorize a t.n.c. fee in san francisco with vote approval. is there something you would be looking into general pricing?

which you look at a congestion based t.n.c. fee to address these congestion impact issues? >> with regards to that, i believe that all options are currently on the table. [laughter] >> thank you, very much. we appreciate the presentation and the work and now we will go to public comments. >> two minutes, please. >> thank you. i did want to -- this is a very welcome reports. it is reflecting things that many of us taxi drivers have been saying for years. and we kinda felt like like we were voices in the wilderness because every time the t.n.c.s would go to the cpuc or go off to sacramento, they would be touting their credentials and people were accepting this at face value.

now we have not just this report , with several others that put the lie to that. it is welcome in that sense. it does note that other key questions including transit ridership and safety are not covered and i wanted to talk specifically to the question of safety because it just happens that in the last week or two there was an article in forbes, which is, you know, basically business publication, the headline which is uber and lift may increase road deaths study. claims, in the study has not yet been published, but the preliminary information about an academic study, you know, comes to the conclusion that there have been more fatalities on the roadways owing to write share

companies. which may be a result simply of increased traffic. but other hypotheses such as, again, anecdotally, what we see every day on the streets. the driving habits of t.n.c.s drivers may very well be a contributing cause. so when you are looking at these issues, it is not just congestion. it is safety and other issues. certainly the city must have the power to deal with this and deal with their own city streets. thank you. >> thank you. good reminder how important it is to have the data. >> hello. i'm with the south of market community action network. we are happy this report is out because it confirms everybody -- something everybody already knew and where we as an organization had been saying since buber was dumped on our streets and that

is that t.n.c.s dramatically increase congestion in san francisco. especially in the south of market and especially in district six. further, the report shows that t.n.c.s greatly increase the total number of vehicle miles travelled which is another significant indicator of automobile usage. this is all hugely significant for a number of reasons. traffic and congestion have tremendous negative impacts. the increase in cars directly increases global warming as does the increase in v.m.t. and idling that occurs. aside from the obvious and immediate environmental impacts, the huge increase in congestion due to t.n.c.s as lasting negative impacts on the physical and mental health of residents, workers and community members, including families and children. it is completely unacceptable that streets are clogged with these ridesharing companies that exacerbate the neighbourhood his existing pedestrian safety issues and this is an issue that

is really about community health and healthy communities. about children, families, seniors and people with disabilities and some of our city his most vulnerable's residence. this study must be a wake-up call to the city. regarding the text sharing economy, t.n.c.s and the need for aggressive regulation. the unregulated nature of t.n.c.s in san francisco has led to an unprecedented level of congestion with the south of market shouldering a disproportionate burden of this reality. in addition to the fact that an entire taxi industry has been decimated by companies such as uber. that city and sfmta must address these out-of-control t.n.c.s. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. the report that the c.t.a. did

has led to a ballot measure that peskin is putting together for the tax congestion tax on uber and lift. it will raise $30 million a year projected but based on 70 million rise. is 40 cents a ride. can be passed on to the passengers. and spokespeople are very happy with that solution. but i don't think it goes to address the root problems that t.n.c.s are causing. the traffic congestion. this will not get better. pollution, unfair business practices, rampant insurance fraud, a.d.a. violations, deterioration of all workers' income. you look at the business model that cooper has, they are using venture capital to create a monopoly to destroy legitimate competitors. i applaud taxi companies for having filed an antitrust lawsuit a couple of years ago against uber technologies. and interestingly, three days ago, a writer, -- a writer says

the inside story of how uber got into business with the saudi arabian government, saudi arabia royal family now owns ten% of uber. the same people who murdered a journalist, apparently. there are bright spots that have been shown elsewhere. he has worked well over the years with the taxi industry. we are challenging on you to be the best and the brightest and find a way to get half of these uber his off the street. there will be so much less traffic to get places faster. at the same time, you will be able to help people. you need to keep the taxi industry healthy and cut back on the insurance logic -- fraud. there is rampant insurance fraud i have run out of time. thank you. >> thank you. do i have any more public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. thank you, again. is very valuable information and we look forward to the next report. thank you. >> thank you. welcome. >> good afternoon. although i think we are approaching good evening. i will keep my remarks very short. i am the acting director of transit. with me i have janet, our v.p. program manager and monique, who is our director -- deputy of capital finance. they have been tremendous partners with the agent we are bringing to you today.

i will start with the bad news first. the bad news is that this is old and they're getting old. as they get older, they are becoming increasingly hard to maintain. harder to get parts. we are having to do reverse engineering because we don't even have a parts pipeline. and as you know, a major breakdown in the subway can create a bad day for an entire system of customers. the silver lining, the good news is that the program has delivered on all of our expectations and promises. it is a reliable vehicle.

it has the advanced customer information systems that we have an innate high transit using city. and that was not by accident. that was through the leadership and a really strong procurement process. so what we have before you today is an information item to let you know that although there is a lot of things that have to happen between now and then, it

is our recommendation that we look to expedite the replacement of the fleet. so that we are on track and exceeding our timeline for the first 68 vehicles, which are expansion vehicles. they are desperately needed for our crowding and for our customers. and we are now looking for opportunities to bring the replacement portion of the contract quicker and also to shortage in its overall timeline that will reduce the amount of time we spend with a mixed fleet , which in and of itself, is a complication in terms of maintenance and it will really expedite getting an excellent service product to our customers i know you guys have had the presentation, i think i covered a lot of the highlights. this is the current timeline.

as you can see, we are talking about the hundred 51 replacement of the current. at a stretch over a an extremely long. for financial reasons when we bought these, we did not have enough money to buy it in a short duration. so that got stretched out. but there are a lot of trade-offs with that. and most immediately, not having the new vehicle sooner. the vehicles themselves, we are getting tremendous amount of positive feedback from our customers. they are more spacious and more energy efficient and quieter. they have advanced accessibility features. we are getting some negative feedback related to the interior design on the seating. the great news -- >> i'm not alone. >> you are not alone. the great news is 151 as an opportunity for us to

internalize and respond to the feedback. so that is part of this process. is in addition to some smaller mechanical fixes that we need to make based on how the vehicles are performing and some of the feedback we are getting from mechanics, we are also looking at this seating issue is one of the primary things that we want to address. our main ask today is to build on the momentum that we have. to take advantage of what is already an institutional knowledge, both on our side and on siemens, which could be lost by an extending gap in the procurement and in the process. i think that the document that we shared with you kind of documents some of the financial positives as well as the negatives.

some of the costs are associated with the financing of purchasing the vehicle sooner. but there is a lot of financial benefits that we anticipate, including not having to pour a lot of money. we will have to pour some money, because we still need them, but not having to pour a lot of money into expensive capital campaigns, as well as just the fact that the new vehicles, because they had a lot of input from maintenance staff in their design, they are easier to maintain. easier to do preventative maintenance. more efficient for staff resources. so our two key benefits are we are not spending money to maintain old equipment and we are getting benefits to customers sooner. >> yes. >> two things. first of all i think it would not be fair to her on her last day here to not point out that one of the reasons that finance

costs for this will be so low is because she has done such a good job maintaining our credit rating and that sort of thing. is a finance cost but it could be worse if we were in different streets. this is a great presentation. i'm supportive of what you are doing. the one question i have from a customer service standpoint is this. as i envision this, the idea of a mixed fleet, going forward meant a bigger fleet and meant that perhaps the use of three, perhaps even four car trains where we really need them. take for example, the klm rolling through castro, already full. and expanded shuttle service. my understanding is the goal is still to give as much life as we can out of the old lrp and have the biggest fleet possible. but it is just when a vehicle is -- there is a point where it is better to take a vehicle out of service because it is likely to hold up the entire tunnel and we

are managing that. is that the correct analysis of this? >> if i could, what we are aiming to do is speed up the acceleration. or to accelerate the replacement of the vehicles. not to -- we would still have, at the end of next year, before we will have 68 more vehicles than we had 20 years ago in service. we will be at that level until we potentially exercise the option. at the back end of this, for an additional 45 vehicles. what we change during the time is the mix of the different vehicles and we want to accelerate changing over from the vehicles. we will still have the 200 and something vehicles in service and we want to retire the old ones faster by replacing them. not just parking them, but by replacing them with new siemens cars. to the extent that we have vehicles that we can't make it

perform reliably. they are because we need to make but the real purpose and what we are proposing is not just to put cars aside, it is to replace them with new vehicles spewing to the extent that we have a new vehicle and an old vehicle that both work, will keep them both rolling and not just replace for the sake of replacing. >> correct. the 68 are all expansion. it is keeping everything we have in service and adding, which is a very significant increase in the fleet. >> that is the key point. thank you for clarifying that. >> go ahead. >> the seating -- >> there were so many complaints about the seating. >> that is just from malcolm. [laughter] >> he hasn't returned my calls. are you kidding me? >> we owe the board and we will be coming back to the board with a summary of what we are hearing

some feedback, the process and some options to consider that we would be able to potentially pilot within the existing fleet and have resolved before we go into production. >> that is what i have been hearing from people. [please stand b

session. directors item 17, it would be appropriate for either a motion to disclose or not did i see close. >> motion to not disclose. >> second. >> there's a motion and a second. all in favor? >> madam director, that concludes the business before the m.t.a. today. >> okay. meeting is adjourned. go vote.

>> good evening and welcome to the november 7th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank funk -- frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. commissioner anna lazarus is absent tonight. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls as a legal assistant. and the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from city departments and cases before -- for cases before the board this evening. we expect joseph duffy, the senior building inspector starting department of building

inspection and deputy city attorney representing the department of public health. the managers with environmental health branch of the department of public health will also be here. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they don't disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. permit holders and respondents get seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for a rebuttal. people affiliated must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing request, the parties will get a total of three minutes with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, your asp not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium.

if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules are scheduled. please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting a call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , channel 78. we will broadcast at 4:00 pm as well. now we will swear in our -- or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify and would like to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn and/or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. ok. we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment.

this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not alternate but just calendar. is there any member of the public who would like to comment we will move on to item number 2 commissioner comments and questions. >> on behalf of the board we would like to welcome our newest commissioner, rachel tanner. welcome and good luck. >> thank you. it is off. first morning. i will turn the next one on and off. it is great to be here. thank you for the warm welcome. i am excited to join you all and be part of the board of appeals. thank you. >> i want to reiterate welcoming commissioner tanner to our board and apologize i was not at her hearing. welcome. >> ok. his or any public comment on item number 2? seeing then, will move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes.

before you for discussion, possible adoption of the minutes of the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. >> any corrections or just -- additions? if not, we will entertain a motion to accept. >> motion. >> we have a motion to adopt the minutes from the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. on that motion -- excuse me. is there any public comment on that? seeing none, we will go onto the boat. wow -- [roll call]. >> that motion carries 4-0. item number 4 is a rehearing request at 2722 and 2724 folsom street. the appellant is requesting a repeal of a hearing. the planning department disapproval decided october 10

th, 2018. at that time, the board voted 3- 1. to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the apartment on the basis that the department did not err on the decision. the permit is for administrative purposes only. no work on the permit to. they are trying to document -- document illegal use. the subject building is a three-story building with two residential dwelling units. correcting previously issued c.f.c. showing the buildings of three -- a three unit building. i would like to ask commissioner tanner, did you have an opportunity to review the video and materials for the appeal that was heard? >> i did. >> prior to this, i would like to disclose i am a partner in a project that hired the law firm of reuben and junius as council. there up appearance will not have any effect on my decision. >> thank you. we will now hear from the requester.

>> thank you. good evening. welcome commissioner tanner. i am the city appellant. commissioners, as you know, is a case about the number of dwelling units in my client's home. any legal unit was erroneously counted on a old c.f.c. as a lawful unit and my client was directed by d.b.i. to apply for a permit to correct the c.f.c.'s error. we are requesting a rehearing tonight because we decided this case 3-1 on grounds that had already been decided in a formal preapplication decision. under ab 28 kathy's decisions are binding and they are only appealable to the building inspection commission and not support of appeals. to exceed this jurisdiction is manifest and just. overhead, please.

good evening, commissioners. >> overhead, please. >> good evening commissioners. the subject property is my home which i have lived in for 11 years. which i have owned for 11 years. i have been trying to follow the processes to make my home safe but the city keeps folk pulling the rug from underneath me. when i discovered my home had a unit count problem i was told to get an official unit counts. after applying for a unit to count, they refused. i was then told to apply for a preapplication determination. they determined my home has been and always is illegal to watch what unit building. and instructed me to get a permit to correct the record. i applied for the permit to correct the record and b.d.i. has denied it. i don't know why i am being put through this but homeowners in city departments should both have to follow the rules. i respectfully ask the board to grant a rehearing his of the legal and binding preapplication decision under ab 28 can be

honored. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. a preapplication meeting was held with d.b.i. and fire to review the history and documentation of this property. after an exhaustive review by d.b.i. and fire, the determination -- they determined based on the lack of required upgrades the proper classification of the building is a two unit are three. a signed preapplication is considered as a final determination for code related conditions. furthermore, if d.b.i. and fire management disagreed with the findings, it could happen corrected and appealed. this was not the case. thank you. >> commissioners, i am happy to answer any questions.

this is an issue that may have been missed in the last hearing. the binding nature of ab 28 and the preapplication decision which decided the subject matter of this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now here from mr sanchez and the planning commission. >> hello. d.b.i. i would like to welcome commissioner tanner on behalf of ddf -- d.b.i. i am looking forward to working with you. on this case, i was not here for the original hearing. although i am very familiar with him. mr patterson, this is the third law form now dealing with this case and probably over the last

couple of years i have been involved with dealing with a number of dwelling units in this in the dwelling units. we do deal with a lot of d.b.i., , it seems more than ever we have a process called a unit clarification which has worked by a records people and then given to a senior building inspector who will look at the records, including the assessor his records, water department records, d.b.i. records, anything that could determine the legal number of dwelling units in a building. in this case, they came to d.b.i. with a package. we went out to the building as we normally do and it was determined that it couldn't be done as a unit type verification because there were two cfcs on file for a three unit building. when it is working like that in the records -- there is no real

clear-cut one, we cannot, it d.b.i. give an administrative permit to correct it. it would require a building permit with the departing department. we advised on that and that process was used at one point in the process and the planning department and planning commission turned it down. whether that was before or after the unit, it does not matter. and we then went to -- we try to get the two units in the building but there are two cfcs. again, just trying to get this resolved through a proper way, he probably wanted to exhaust his options, at this body, which is the board of appeals and get the permit disapproved. d.b.i. and appealed that disapproval to the board of appeals.

unbeknownst to me, and until i actually looked at this case, i noticed that there was a pre application meeting that took place and it has been referred to here tonight. the preapplication meetings and d.b.i. are very good process. they are one of the best deals that you can have. you can talk about your upcoming project and you can get code questions answered. whether you need sprinklers, what will be the requirements for fire ratings, et cetera. in this case i have never seen a preapplication meeting processed and use that term legal number of dwelling units. the preapplication process was abused here. i do recognize we do have ab 28 i have never, in my history of looking at preapplication meetings, seen a number of dwelling units decided at a pre application meeting. i have spoken to the gentleman who had done that us after the meeting with the fire department

and i spoke to him today he is semiretired so he is hard to get a hold of every day. at this current time. i am looking at -- i have spoken to the city attorney office and i'm in the plan just process of looking into the preapplication meeting to see -- i just don't think that we should be at a pre application meeting looking back on c.f.c.s 30 years ago to determine if they were legally issued or not. that is a question for the inspection division. through this process, he dealt with me. he dealt with the chief building inspector. he dealt with the deputy director as well. we all said, and we are standing over our c.f.c.s. if everyone got a c.f.c.s started showing up at d.b.i., then we would not be able to

stop it. particularly these days with the number of dwelling units. they are in the process for that the planning department deals with it. i do not -- i do know we have a lot of documentation. there are so many records that show this as a three unit building. as i said, we are dealing with the city attorney's office on this one to see what we will end up with. there are questions about work that was done in work that wasn't done. upgrading the building to a type two, that is on a lot of what d.b.i. did during these reports. i see that even on condo reports today. buildings, whole buildings in san francisco can be one hour construction. i am not too sure that is what we will do to the building to upgrade that was there already. so there was a circle made on that report. my argument is that the building

was one arm before you even got that with the three units that were there. when he came into d.b.i. in october of 2017, his first -- as a building owner, i'm requesting a preapplication meeting with the members of d.b.i. to verify the type of construction of my building. that somehow turned into how many units i have in my building and in quite a lengthy letter that was signed off by jeff ma, that turned into a letter in november, a response letter that ended up being completely different from the questions that were answered of the original october 2017. and indeed, the last item on the meeting, he actually, almost had jeff not stating he can have a single-family dwelling in the building. as i said, meat reading through this brief and not being at the last hearing, and getting into this more and whether you want

to open up the appeal again, that is your decision. it is a complicated one. i am -- as i said, he has been at d.b.i. several times with us. that is the update that i have for you tonight. i am available for any questions >> mr duffy, i was actually a little surprised to see that particular subject matter as part of a preapplication. by the preapplication was issued is there anything in your rules and regulations that deal with the subject matter that can be presented and discussed at a pre application? >> probably not but there will be soon. dwelling units today with the legal dwelling units, but we are going through in the city at the minute with legalizing units, you can't take a legal unit out.

it is not advisable for d.b.i. and a preapplication meeting to be determined. even i spoke to mr mott today and he realizes that. if we did that in a pre application, what does it do the planning department and where does it go to? it is not the proper form in my opinion. ab 28, i could take you ten pre application letter sent d.b.i. as a guarantee none of them talk about how many dwelling unit should i have in my building? is a c.f.c.s valid? is it not valid? it is not what a preapplication meeting is for. if you want to read ab 28 like that, that is the one we have for the guidelines. it is mainly used -- i'm sure he has many years of experience, it is usually regarding a project that you are coming in your edition -- addition, high-rise, because it cuts off a lot of

stuff during the project. there is not really a project here. it is not a preapplication for a project. i just don't think it is there. but that is part of what i have to do in this case. because this was used. it is probably looking at what we are doing with d.b.i. in regards to preapplication and have a question possibly before someone comes in and asked them if they have gone through a process. is this to legalize a unit? it is -- is it something that questions at d.b.i. records? this is what it was all totally about. we have records in pbi. if there something wrong with the records, they refer you to the building inspection division many times i have fixed a c.f.c. that was issued incorrectly. we do allow for that. in this case, we did not see that. he went with the pre-op meeting. anyway.

we are not done with it at d.b.i. i think we have to look at it again and see where we are at. we can do that internally. i can work with him. i have no problem with that. i think he just tried to exhaust his option at the board with the disapproval and appealing the disapproval. >> any further questions? >> mr sanchez? >> good evening, members of the board. welcome, commissioner tanner. i hope you enjoy your time on the board as much as i enjoy coming to the board to do these presentations. i will be brief on the matter. we outlined all the issues we had but to reiterate, this is not the first time that this project has been before the department. the applicant initially brought a permit in 2016 to remove one

of the three legal dwelling units and we believe these dwelling units are based upon the permit history and they sought the permit and conditional use authorization was required. they reduce the legal number of units from 3-2. during the course of that process it was found that there were illegal units on the property. it just wasn't one of the three units. there were two additional units on the property. there was a total of five. under the planning code, the requirements are much more stringent for removal of illegal units. it is now illegal to remove an illegal unit. there is an exemption process if there is no path to legalization which was found to be the case for the two units in this case. they were able to remove those units without the conditional use authorization. but what is before you now is a rehearing request and the appellant has raised information

that they did argue and provide to you in the last hearing. it is unclear to me how this request meets the board's strict standards for a rehearing request. but it also is unclear to me what the ultimate goal or aim of the applicant is in this case. certainly if the board did find that this was an illegal third unit, they would be required under section 317 to remove that unit. but the first direction of the city agencies is to legalize the units. so we would ask that they go forward and legalize the third unit and not remove it further under the planning code when there is a discrepancy about or lack of clarity in the permit records about whether or not a unit his legal. we are to assume that the unit is legal. in this case, it is not a question or a lack of clarity. the records indicate these are three illegal units. we would go with that and interpreted very clearly s3 illegal units.

i am available for any questions the board may have. thank you. >> from your point of view, everything that we are doing tonight, we heard last time. so according to our rules, which are you must have new information that was not presented previously. this would not meet that test. >> in my opinion, they are presenting it in a different way but it is certainly they couldn't have presented as a last hearing, in my opinion. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners.

>> i concur. i see no new information or manifest in just. i make a motion to deny the rehearing request on that there is no manifest injustice. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request for a rehearing. on that motion, president fung? >> that motion carries. the rehearing request is denied. we will now move on to item number 5. this is an appeal number 18-103. subject property is 317 dorado terrace. appearing -- appealing the issuance of a public works orator.