by their first name. who is john? >> john is the architect. >> clerk: we will now hear from john the architect. >> i'm john the architect. so miss saber is being disingenuous. she's gaming the system. i talked to her multiple times, multiple times from the variance hearing to the second variance hearing, and on the phone multiple times. then, an attorney was hired, and the attorney talked to miss saber multiple times. she asked for clarification of documents on multiple occasions. what we have before us today is a rear yard who ahorizontal in variance. i believe, respectfully, we followed all the rules to be granted this rear yard horizontal in-fill. we are not taking miss saber's

parking space. we are giving her a parking space that is some spaces closer to her unit. when she refers to parking in the set back, the set back she has is 10 feet deep. the sidewalk happens to be 20 feet deep. you're not allowed to park on public property, so when miss saber and others would park across the property line, that is in violation -- mr. sanchez has already talked about that. one of the questions about open space, the current building does not comply with the required open space. if you just take the new units that we're asking for, there's enough open space for the new units, but when you take all the units in consideration, there's still -- the building does not comply. i -- i feel badly for people who are losing their parking, and if they talk to the landlor landlo landlord, there may be able to be something that happens. these two people that spoke had

not communicated to the landlord about this, and it's out of my hands. these are reason people. they tried to work with miss saber for two -- we extended the project for multiple months. she's trying to setup something that we will fail at. she wants us to provide her parking in a building that's in a construction site for three months. so we'll give her a parking spot that's a building inside a construction space. if we do that, her vehicle will be damaged. if we don't provide her parking, she wants $300,000. we're doing what we're supposed to do with respect to the planning staff, with respect to the building officials, and thank you for listening to us. >> commissioner honda: you still have 30 seconds, sir. >> so how about those giants? we believe -- we respectfully ask for you to uphold the

variance decision. thank you very much. >> commissioner honda: i've got a question, sir. so i asked you prior if any other tenants were losing services, and you said no. yet two of the tenants came up and said that they're losing storage and garage? are you gaming me here? >> good question, sir. no, sir, we're not gaming them. we can show you on your plans for 2230, we have storage and laundry space. on 2220, we have laundry and storage space. >> commissioner honda: and -- but he said you're not offering him a storage space. >> did he ask? >> commissioner honda: he's been in the space for 30 years. >> so we're damned if we follow the lease, we're damned if we doend. >> commissioner honda: the question prior was are any of the tenants losing their services and that's part of the a.d.u. restrictions, and you told me no one has, but yet two people came up directly behind

you and said that they're losing services. >> first of all, not in 2230, and so i can't speak to 2220. i'm willing to speak to 2220. so we have storage, and we have parking in 2220. >> commissioner honda: okay. you've answered my happening t

kind of parking is reduced, storage is being reduced if there's, you know, you don't probably have a cool diagram like you did for this 2230 building, but what's going on with the other buildings for the parking and storage? >> so i'm happy to answer the question. it's frustrating that i'm not penalized for work that's not being appealed, but i'll tell you. 2200 is we're adding two units. 2200. we're adding two units. there is no parking to be allowed in that. the two garages are being taken by a.d.u. mr. sanchez has said that's allowable. we are -- >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry to interrupt you.

are they taken from tenants or are they vacant already? >> i don't know the exact answer. i know we had seven spaces across all of the buildings at one point -- >> commissioner honda: but you're the project sponsor representing all these buildings, so you're not aware which ones are rented -- >> i'm very aware, but i just didn't bring that document with me. >> commissioner honda: your assistant is -- are you aware if they're rented or not? >> sir -- okay. fine. 2200, we're adding two a.d.u.s, and we're taking the parking. we're maintaining storage and laundry facilities. 2210, we're adding three a.d.u.s, and the three a.d.u.s have storage and laundry, but there's no garages being provided. 2200 was part of the variance application, and in essence, 2200 is the same as 2230.

we asked for five, they gave us, in this case, two -- three, and we kept -- we kept two parking spaces in 2220, and we've already discussed 2230. >> commissioner lazarus: so then essentially just to clarify, there's four buildings. there were x number of garage spaces. some were the a.d.u. process went forward, and the garages are to be replaced with a.d.u.s, and the building seismically retrofitted, and in buildings that were granted variances, in some -- >> ma'am, can i respond to that, please? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. so the current rules are there, you may replace with a.d.u. if the greater good would like us to provide parking in some units, we will do that. but the current rules that we're operating under are you

may replace parking with a.d.u.s, and again, it's the greater good clause. and that's what we're doing. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. because the architect just clarified there are multiple properties in various planning stages, 2230 and 2210 did not require any variances as part of their plan to generate a.d.u.s. 2220 i think did also have a varian variance which was appeal today this board, which was actually withdrawn. i believe 2230 turk is the building that the appellant

lives in, at least from the property records. and this is the adjacent property, 2230, which has the variance and is on appeal. this would not be provided required parking for the appellant. they're, under the code, required parking is required to be located on the same lot, so this isn't required parking for the same lot. this would be required parking for the subject park which is not my understanding where the appellant resides. in regards to parking in the front set back, i appreciate commissioner tanner's comments. the planning department -- and this would be a violation of the planning code. the planning department does not have the ability to issue tickets. this would not be something -- >> commissioner honda: thank god for that. >> we're working on it, but the m.t.a. would have the ability to ticket for a vehicle that's parked inkrecorrectly, but the

would not ticket somebody parked incorrectly in the re-- pretty much anyone who is parking in that front set back of the subject property is going to be parking in the public right-of-way, in the sidewalk, which would be a violation. so that would not be code compliant parking. we would not say that's contributing towards any of the parking requirements towards the subjects property. it would be substandard in size, as well. it wouldn't even be a meaningful parking space under the planning code. i think a driveway, a

garage vacated, we do require that the curb cut be restored to restore some parking. >> so in some regard, there won't be a driveway to park in in front of these units to be accessible. >> you're right. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: mr. sanchez, the project sponsor said they had gone through all the steps, so they should be allowed a variance. isn't the bar extremely high? >> it is. as you know, variance appeals are brought forward denovo. there's no -- it doesn't exacerbate any noncompliance,

in that it doesn't encroach further into the rear yard. what it does is add housing into the city's housing stock. >> did we ever have a minimum housing site for a.d.u.s? >> yeah, not under the planning code, there wouldn't be a minimum planning size for a.d.u.s. it's generally under the planning code, and the minimum unit size, i would want to say it's about 220, i think. >> so is this unit compliant with that code? >> i believe that it is because it's about the areas that it would include, but nothing -- it wouldn't approvable if it wasn't, but i will double-check the plans. >> commissioner honda: don't you love having a planner on our board now? >> i do. it's great. >> vice president swig: so i will repeat that i am significantly sympathetic to the tenants and their plight, whether it was implied when

they moved in 20 or 30 years ago or it's dated in a written form in the lease, it will give us a lesson that we better get it written in the lease. but in fact, you know, if -- if i play the role in the -- in the christmas carol of mr. scrooge, bah humbug, the planning code said that the owner of the building can convert the garages to a.d.u., bah humbug, and if you don't like it, again, in playing the role of mr. scrooge, come sue me. so it -- really and true, do the tenants in this case, according to the planning code, not an ethical code, not a

tenants' code, but according to the planning code, do they have any rights here, according to the planning code, to refute this action by the landlord -- by the project sponsor? >> the planning code would not require the retention of the parking but -- i mean, the reason that we have a hearing, the reason that -- i mean, that zoning administrator teague, i think, spent to long in deliberating this matter. changes were made to the project, they retained three parking spaces because they have leases for three parking spaces. this is my understanding, so they are actually reducing the number of units that they would do in the project in order to maintain the number of parking spaces for which we have leases. >> vice president swig: to in your view, the project sponsor has compromised themselves for

the benefit of those tenants with leases that include parking garages, and that when those tenants abdicate, they will have the right to go in and do those remaining three. certainly, they're not going to resign up tenants with parking garages, and they'll convert them. now with regard to the five findings and things like significant hardships and character of neighborhood and stuff like that, you're hanging your hat very heavily on additional housing for the city of san francisco, which is certainly a critical item. but where -- where's the -- where's the hardship piece? >> this is a rear-yard variance. the purpose of the rear yard is to provide either useful open space or also contribute to a pattern of midblock open space. one, this is a corner lot, two, the building is not increasing

its noncompliance. it's not extending any further. it's fill in a void that's currently under parking. so denying the variance would prioritize parking over housing as we see it without any negative impact in terms of what the rear-yard requirement is supposed to address, which is encroachment into the block open space, is this is not exacerbating that noncompliance in that respect. so i think the findings are justified in this case. >> vice president swig: and you'll be writing them in this case? >> well, they've already been written by zoning administrator teague. >> commissioner honda: but he was acting zone administrator at the time. >> he was acting at the time, and he was acting well, and it was permitted. so under the unit size, the units are -- the proposed units are 581 square feet, 781 square feet, and 615 square feet. some of the units are -- aren't even subject to this variance. and they could actually remove

more parking without even need for this variance. >> all right. thank you. >> vice president swig: thank you for my question. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner honda: make me the guy, sure. so what's before us, you know, as you mentioned, vice president, is under the eyes of planning, they are allowed to do that, which is correct, ask that would be if this is a fully code compliant project. what is before us is not a fully code compliant project because it requires a variance. the findings for a variance and allowance of variance are very strict. as you mentioned, the hardship. i don't find the hardship personally in this, and in my view, it does not meet the five criteria that's required to -- to pass a variance, and i am

not supportive of it. >> i don't agree. >> for my part, i would say i'm somewhat conflicted. on one hand, i'm very much in support of the creation of more housing, which the project sponsor seeks to do, which i think is very important. at the same time, being a car owner myself, i can understand the desire to have access to your car, to have access to secure parking and not have to look for street parking. i think i'm most sympathetic to the tenants in the other buildings who do not have parking written into their leases because they were, you know, 40 years ago, i believe, 30 years ago, and that's not actually before us tonight,

though. from what i understand, that's parking space in another -- in another building. >> commissioner honda: i agree. i'm sending a message. >> commissioner tanner: so i'm not -- i'm not totally decided, i have to say. >> vice president swig: and i would say that philosophically, theoretically, and personally, i'm sympathetic to the tenants, but i -- i -- you know, those laws trip me up all the time, and -- >> commissioner honda: that's if it's code compliant, which it's not. >> vice president swig: and -- yeah, and i wrestle with that. but i -- i think that given the act of the -- of the project sponsor to sustain the three

parking places, that there was an effort to compromise instead of just slam dunking it and going for the whole thing and then, you know, going to war. so not happy about it, but i don't think i can support your -- >> commissioner honda: want to make a motion? >> vice president swig: deny the appeal on the grounds that the variance was properly issued. we go. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the issue of the variance decision on the basis that the rear yard variance meets the five findings required under the planning code section 305-c. on that motion -- [roll cal [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and the appeal is denied. [please stand by]

i want to focus on the fact that the exposure issue is one that has not been properly addressed by the project. article 25 indicates, you have to comply with various subsections. one of the subsections requires proof of compliance with public health compliance standard. now, in order to be satisfied, the proof -- pardon me, the proof of compliance with the public health compliance

standards, the cellphone company has submitted a document and you can find this in the public works brief that is exhibit h, the radio frequency report. in that report, it addresses the noise that would be generated by the installation. as well as the frequency that would be emitted. when you look at the consulting engineer's report. they paid engineers to assess whether or not it was going to be compliant. so that they could satisfy article 25. the engineers did a fine job of weighing out the 11 points that are required in order to obtain the compliance. the most important to this analysis, item number 2 which requires a listing, i will read

verbatim from the report. listing within 100 feet of the site that contributes to the radio frequency energy at this location. the purpose, of course, of that particular standard is so that we can assess whether it will be problematic for the neighbours for anybody who is passing by. the response from the engineers, paid to draft the report, is as follows, i will quote, while there may, while there may be other wts facilities near the site, the added impact of the proposed location would be negligible in terms with the compliance with the audit. in short, you can read that -- there may be other towers in the vicinity. they didn't look at that issue. they did not assess what would be put on the neighbours and they slide this through in an attempt to get the compliance satisfied. one of the other requirements

that the public works department put upon them was the fact that they should, they should be aware that the neighbours and residents in the neighbourhood would be concerned about the dose issue. we are. and what they indicate in the public works indicates, you need to take into account that factor and you need to be prepared to address that issue and to have the protocol in place to deal with that issue. nowhere in the papers submitted by the public works department do we have any indication from the local cellphone company that there is a protocol procedure in place. so that the neighbours can have issues tested should they feel there is a problem with the radio frequency. that is the thrust. that is the nub of it. there may be public comment on the issues. this is an area that should be

entitled to receive the cellphone tower -- but the issue is about the public safety that comes from the dose of multiple towers in a neighbourhood or the block between pierce and fir that has 10 children living on the block. with that, i will submit. >> thank you. >> i represent the homeowners association. i wanted to address the mapping issue. that was one of the main things raised by the department of public works. and i think that they tried -- misunderstanding the map. it is exhibit b. it is a published map that we the public rely on and refer to when we look at what is intended to do. if you look at what the city says on the f a.q., the city

represents, the planning department represents, they did extensive background on the proposed project on the cell towers to ensure it is compatible with the neighbourhood. they published the city planning as a result of that for the permit project. if you look at our neighbourhood, and the street that we specifically designated, it is -- i have the one i downloaded... >> here we go. >> thank you. >> if you look at the street. it is as claimed. in 1976, the survey of the building. the street, if you look at the

codes on the map, the street is not designated as anything. it is white. which means it was never designated as an approved street for one of the towers. if there are grounds or reasons to go away from this map, they should have designated the reasons for that. in fact, what i was at the initial hearing, public works admitted they did not look at the map when they approved the project. i think that if they are going to vary from their own map, they have to have a justification for doing so. they didn't put this forth in the initial application and have not put justification in this one. the blocks away from the site is an approved stream. there is no reason they could not go two and a half blocks east. >> thank you.

>> good evening. thank you for your attention to the matter. i am the infrastructure provider who is looking to improve the network. this is discussed tonight. to improve the data capacity of the existing network in the area based on actual data failures. you know, reported from the customer's phones. multiple city departments reviewed the documentation from the facility under article 25, and based on the substantial evidence found that the facility -- article 25 requirements.

the amendment argues with the study prepared and shows the cumulative effect of the facility at an another nearby facility. the city facility checklist excludes analysis of the facility located more than 100 feet away and they produce -- you know, radio emissions. additionally the federal regulations for cumulative effects are with multiple carriers. this is the only carrier on the pole. this facility is within the limits. there are no other cellphone towers or sites that would contribute to the cumulative effects beyond federal regulations. the brief, the suggestion, the

federal law preempts such action based on action. it was argued that the study failed to consider the cumulative noise effects of this proposed facilities and another facility a block away. there is no cumulative noise requirement in the city regulations. article 25 regulations, as it pertains to the adjacent building, the catholic church which is 16 feet away from the proposed site. you know, any other noise levels from the facilities a block or more away are irrelevant. you know, there is not reason to up hold the appeal. as for appeal ant facility based

on the planning map and the frequency asked question document from 2015, it is a misunderstanding on her part that map identifies streets, buildings, districts of different significance in the studies, there may be federal protections or possible federal state protections and identifies streets that have excellent views that could increase -- relating to article 25. nothing about the map said if you can or cannot have facilities. the appeal ant said nothing on the map, it is not designating -- excellent views. it will heighten the standards by the city here.

and frequently asked question document from 2015, it talks about the first proposed locations. back in 2015. we were planning for the northeast section of the city, you know, that wasn't a limitation. this is the only place the facilities are developing. they are already all across the city. it is not a strict limitation on location. the appealant brief, they also argued failure of complying with article 25 requirements. we submitted everything required under article 25 including specifically which the appealant called the utility conditions, the licensing, the noise study. the appealant advanced arguments

that, you know, making an incorrect determination with protected views. we considered the location, near the catholic church. it is historic. nothing about the street or the church in particular, raised heightened standards under article 25. accordingly, i review the -- and it disrupts the personal view of the church. the public works order addressing the topic. being 6 to 8 feet away from the nearest window. it is not a substantial

impairment. [indiscernible] and the facility is 16 feet away from st. dominics and the appealant residence is across the street. this business and the design of the facility, there is no private view to this extent. basing on the protective view. in conclusion, we request to deny the appeal and allow the permit as originally approved and issued. i have a representative here to answer questions about the study. >> there is a question i have in terms in this regard. the question would be, is there another pole within 100 feet? >> there are other posts nearby,

i don't believe -- >> that was the question the appealant to comply with article 25, there is also the cumulative, within 100 feet. >> yes. >> good evening. i am with hamoc and edson. an independent consultant, locat and an electrical engineer. to answer your question, we are not aware of sites, antennas or facilities within 100 feet of the site. i will add that 100 feet requirement comes from the large macro sites. with multiple antennas. >> they say sites within 100 feet. >> it is really anything within 100 feet.

there is a report that indicates if there is. >> and there is a requirement for measurements, exposure measurements. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department. >> thank you. good evening. vice president and the commissioner. thank you for the opportunity to present to you. i am representing the public works. we believe that this permit was issued in complains to the permitting procedure defined in article 25 for facilities. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department for public health. the planning department and recreation and parks where applicable. in this case, both public health and planning determined that the

application complies with the article. there was a tentative approval on june 7th of 2018 and mailed and posted notice of the approval on june 11th, 2018. public works held a public hearing on july 23rd of this year to consider protests to the tentative approval. following the hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of the determination was distributed to the public on september 20th of this year. the planning department will speak regarding the review. if the board has questions. and the department of public health is in attendance and will speak regarding the review process if the board has questions. and public works is here to speak to questions of public works. >> can you explain, please -- >> the map. which part of the map? >> you would explain the entire map as to why the certain lines

are there. why there are no lines. and you speak -- i have been confused as the appealant. if we can get a tutorial on the map. >> if i understand -- >> a copy of it... do we have one? >> the appealant was talking about designated streets. there is a mapping component there. the appealant was talking about notification. those are mapping questions. and they would be addressed by a different department. in terms of the notification, that would be the public works -- that is the public works portion. before we move forward to the application, this is one of the things we require the applicant to submit if there is a wireless facility within 100 feet. so that is the mapping. and then i notice -- as we --

>> specifically, could you hand this over -- we can talk about -- that is the map. so is -- let's start with a basic question. is every street in san francisco subject to the possibility of having a wireless facility -- the appropriate pole? >> is every map -- >> is every street in san francisco -- >> i believe every street is -- the applicant could apply for

any street. there are different levels of review that are required. >> okay. so where we have on that map red lines where it is confusing, i think, is there are certain streets there that have red lines on it and green. there are streets which are black. the richmond district, if i point out, is -- looks all white. why is the richmond district all white and the richmond district -- have all sorts of red lines on it for example. >> to answer that question, i am going to defer to the planning department. in that instance, what you are asking about is view designations. and that is a map where -- to which the department of public works refers to the planning department. >> so the acting deputy --

sorry, i am having fun with this. we will bring up the map again. thank you. i think i can describe the purposes of the map. to show information to the public as to the level of scrutiny and the application that will proceed, so the map highlights different levels of review. so going to a specific, can you roll back. you can look at the richmond district. so you see big white splotches. and you see areas of heavy green. what is -- why for example, is the richmond district, it looks

like the -- why is the richmond district to the east, to the west -- on the map here, through the lines. there is yellow on top of gold. there is purple. these are the streets that we see. so that, the lines represe-- th the eligible districts.

we have the park. it is easily seen. there is a weird orange or greenish yellow, 1976. and yellow. the significant buildings and district. there is a light blue, conservation districts and dark blue, the san francisco landmarks. these are solid colours with a historic resource. there is probably no show of being a historic resource of being on the map. if the appealant was saying that the facilities are supposed to be located on streets that have the lines, that is incorrect. they would receive more scrutiny. >> that is what the map is -- >> that is what i wanted to

clarify for the appealant. the street has the potential to have a facility on it. and this map is there to indicate which streets would be subject. >> absolutely. they would approve this by the department of public works. we did review and note it was adjacent to the historic resource. and the design was appropriated to the designation of the resource. >> so which -- going down further. going down a little further, with regard to historic church or any historic element, does it matter? i mean here is a pole in front

of a church. it is not less than 6 feet from the church. where does the sensitivity related to an historic element take place. if there was a pole, 25 feet from a tower that was suitable installation. does the historic element become valid there? it is undeniable it is historical. the question was, a couple of things, there are different levels of historic resources, whether it is in a historic district. you have a historic street pole and you want to put a facility on it. it would have a high level of scrutiny. this is not a historic street

pole. st. -- it is not a historic -- the proposal they have here is not significantly different what makes st. dominic a historic resource. and that's why it would be approved. it is something we considered in our review of the application. >> six months ago, eight months ago, the last year and a half or so, we did reject a facility because of an intensity of facilities -- and i can't recall whether that was because there

was intensity of facilities that were just clogging the neighbourhood, this would be -- >> just south? >> yes. >> and it was a significant street and it was a question of the cumulative impact of that and there was a lot of -- i forget -- >> and that was a view issue. there was another one, i recall, that there were so many facilities. many facilities, and so we

rejected the application or upheld the appeal based on that. i can't recall whether that was an issue because there was just so many of them or whether it was cumulative intensity of you know mapping. >> i thought there was a lot of existing things. the clutter, the question of the clutter. it was a term we were using. >> okay. thank you. we educate ourselves about the map and educate ourselves what is historic resource impact. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? how many people are here for public comment on the item, can you raise your hand?

>> thank you for allowing me to have something to say. i appreciate the vice president's comments. when i was asked to come here this evening by my neighbours to address about the project, i did not have my mind made up. i still don't, i have to tell you. i don't share the same level of concern about the cumulative health effects of additional facility as we are calling it. i think these things are a fact of life in our city and the world. i do share a concern about the proliferation of these facilities. st. dominic's is considered historically significant, i look at it every day and i like the view. this facility will be in between me and my view of st. dominic's.

i guess i would urge these folks, potentially the commissioner who is in the real estate business, we need to consider the impact on property values, on views, on significant streets, and all the historic structures when we are considering the city putting more of these facilities in. i am told it is a little unclear whether there is another one of the facilities around the corner. it is more than 100 feet away from the pole outside my window. it technically would not, i guess, impact your decisions on another facility. (please stand by)