>> this is a 28-unit building. a lot of residents would spend time there, have a glass of wine and if there's a building in front of it, it women b will bek tunnel. it will impact the residents on

bay street. i recently got lented to be on the board. whether it's the owner or renter, it a great billion for o live in and we ask the city to take into consideration, to ask the developer to conform with the building cold, to create a 15-foot space. thank you. >> i have a question, ma'am. so it's 2018, and that means 2019 now and you purchased use unit in 2019. >> yes. >> it wasn't disclosed by the setter. >> there was a development in process. i believe this happened after and i think mark mentioned 4 4-2-3. it's a narrow space. >> was there plans supplied at that time in the disclosure process in the tds?

>> i think there was a stack of documents and most of us glossed over and looked at it. >> at eight units, i don't believe they're required to supply affordable howing. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my pa faces the new propose w building. it is maryville antique's

landmark designated in 20-74 signed by the mayor on january 24, 1974. my apartment faces west and gets the afternoon sun. this proposed building will diminish most, if not all of te light and increase traffic congestion and air pollution due to their being one allotted parking space and i've also only heard mention of the building on the corner. nobody has talked about our building, 1550 bay which will be completely blocked. we've been hearing about the -- sorry, i forgot, 1598 bay street. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> cap thcan the last speak proa speaker card, please. can you give a speaker card to

mr. conara at the front. >> good evening, and welcome. >> welcome tow. thank you for being here. >> you can move the microphone if you like. >> can everyone hear? >> yes. >> i wanted to address president swigg's remark about the appellant having taken a calculated risk developing this corner lot. this has been a contentious project from the beginning because it was a landmarked lot. the entire lot was landmarked in 1974. there's been an argument about what's historic and not historic, and what is contribute toris not could contirburke

contirbtory. we have a beautifully landscaped yard and patio. to the right is the substation and this substation is flush with the back. we see an open space from the southern border of the property. now, the l, the long part of the l is along bucannon street. we see an open space landscaped from there north through 3620 and through the formal gardens north and that's an open landscaped area. and through this, our breezes come. this is the own unobstructed area where the breezes come from. and in the winter, when the sun is south, the light comes from the south.

we have p 40 units o 40 units od if this project goes up, it will block the last remaining open area where we get breezes from. it will also diminish the open space by 50%. sand it blocks our view of the green scape. there are lots of views on bucannon street and we won't be seeing though. i don't know how the developer could say there is to impediment ito the breezes. they should do ventory studies. this project does violate planning code 134 and 172. thank you.

>> thank you. >> my name is arnold cohen and i live at 1550 bay, just as sharon, and my windows face bucannon street and the site of the proposed project. the proposed construction will materially impact mine and others, air and breezes and light availability. by encircling our area with all of these new constructed buildings. the historical preservation committee voted 4-2 t-3 to allow this proposed construction and this is contrary to city ordinance passed in the 1974 and

signed by then mayor joseph oliotto and officially recorded in the documents of san francisco. that was the mayorville antique's ordinance. and that ordinance described the l-shaped lot, that entire lot as the antique's historical landmark 58. go back and check the law. as president zwigg just got done saying, go by the letter of the law and that's an ordinance on the books of the city of san francisco. i would just mention the bush street impact of the building that will have eight residential units but only one parking space. what's going to happen to those

seven other cars. pugbucannon street has had truck traffic with safeway and the post office and just the normal traffic. what kind of congestion will that be causing? so my question to you, commissioners, is why is the city planning department, why have they violated the 1974 ordinance, the letter of the law, and why are they allowing the developer to violate this section 134 of the planning code with this rare yard requirement? thank you. want me to fill out a card? >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening.

i'm beth borchers and my husband and i bought at 1598 bay street. we have raised our last three children there and the last one will be a senior if high school. we have wanted to live in san francisco and now we fe get to realize our dream and live in the city. we bought 3096 which faces the north side. we p flew wa knew there was a pt there was a chance this four-story building could be developed. we didn't think it would be a prompt bubeprobability. i want to put a human face in and i appreciated the last conversation about the parking that there are real humans here. so the situation of their lot and i appreciate they have

provided the right amount of green space per your codes but if you look at where it's situated, it doesn't value the humans here. it sits here the historic building, which is lovely, but how they couldn't have situated that green space and benefited all of these people that lived there. so literally, we're on the third floor and we will reach our arm out the window and have a brick wall facing our unit. put so appreciate you listening. now. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. are there any more -- any more public comment? seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant. you have three minutes, sir. >> thank you. let me quickly address a couple of points made. thfirst of all, where is the rae yard setback? it's on bucannon and that's

where they're providing zero. there's confusion and statements have been misleading regarding our building. i'm showing our building and we have 100-foot deep lot and we provided about 20-foot average and actually, it would be 25-foot. we did get a variance but provided about 80% of the rear yard. the fact is, we provide a rear yard and we provided a voluntary foot-foot setback when our neighbor asked for a greater setback. it was 30 feet and we provided 35 feet. so we listen to our neighbors. the comment about other barriers. they required us during construction to provide a variance to satisfy dbi. so we had a variance, a

technical variance but we provided a rear yard and to rear yard is provided here as i note there. tha very important point was mae by their attorney and talked about the relationship between the existing historic building and the proposed building and they basically said, hey, h that was important for us. we pushed our building to that side and provided no rear yard or no side yard and sacrificed the neighbor for themselves. so the exclusive use garden area is between the same owner. and they basically took the rear yard and said, let's put it in the side yard because it gives a greater setback. of course, another solution would be to provide the respiratoried setback to provide a slightly smaller building but

they wanted to maximize the envelope and said, let's just take the rear yard and put it in the side yard and pretend like we met the requirement. so i think they made our point a bit in this and how the deal was cut. >> i think another point of confusion, we have the existing mary vale antique's building and the garden shed in the required rear yard in this antique's building. this otherwise says you cannot enlarge an existing structure. it. >> thank you. your time is up. >> we will now hear from

miss snipe. >> thanks very pitch. much. the hearing is on appeal of the variance for the rear yard. so some the neighbors are unhappy there will be developmendevelopment there. this is a rear yard configuration. in looking at that, at the site plan, if i could have the overhead. we're talking about whether to pull this building back 15 feet from the rear of the yard. we heard about the rear patio which is back here for the adjacent building. we've heard about views from some other nearby buildings and frankly, that's not really particularly impacted by that rear yard setback. pulling a building back 15 feet, it's easier on the rendering. you can see, it doesn't provide much benefit for any of the

neighbor, really, and it will provide much less appealing construction for the site. this building provides site lines to the street and a portion has been pulled back to really maximize the experience of the gas light building, the experience of the courtyard. you know, a lot of work to make sure this is a great compatible billion and benefits the entire block and the city as a whole. and we think that it's a great use of the site and we would ask you to uphold the project. thank you. >> counselor, are there any affordable units in this building? >> it's not required for an eight-unit project. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. just on a couple of points, if i

could have the overhead forwards. so we had public comment from the building at 1550. there's wheel a whole lot in between the two and that's the lot which is about 100 feet wide, which is wider than bucannon is. it's about the same width as bay street. so i think there is adequate separation between 1550 bay and the proposed building. in terms of the historic aspect, the project did require a certificate of proposeness for the preservation commission and approved on november 7th of 2018. so anyone who bought the unit after that, would have known the historic preservation commission would have approved the project and if van, wen in january wente

planning commission. neither the cu or appropriateness were appealed, given there was the cu, that appeal would have gone to the board of sou supervisors. as you know, one of the issues in sequa appeals is historic preservation and the board of supervisors upheld the determination. in terms of the rear yard percentage as the appellant noted, the percentage on 1598 bay street, there's more open space on the subject lot than the project architect demonstrated that. so there's more on the subject lot in totality. additionally, in terms of the impacts on 159 the 8 bay streete of the benefit they were adding,

while not complying exposure, they were providing substantial open space in the terms of the roof deck which won't be impacted. i believe it would be as a part of the project and part of common open space, open overhead. so i don't know if this rendering depicts the location of everything on the adjacent building, but there's a substantial kind of deck area and the subject property is not developing the roof deck. so i think there's adequate, light air kind of access to open-space areas. is it ideal? i think had the projects come along, maybe it could have been a more elegant solution. when i was looking at the plans, i was confused and thought there was one project because of the similarity. >> i have a question, which is not really germane to what's before us tonight but for clarification. am i correct that planning is

not requiring parking spaces any longer in certain developments? >> that is correct, as of earlier this year, the city has removed all required parking spaces, except from mortuaries, which had an increase in their parking requirement under the legislation. some we won't go there. [ laughter ] >> if no parking, no one will have a car. [ laughter ] >> so can you address -- we had point comment on the 1974 ordinance and it's their view that once an ordinance, always an ordinance and if that ordinance was protecting a building, that ordinance was golden for the rest of time. can you address that ordinance and how that ordinance is not goaleddegolden for the rest of ? >> we agreed it's a landmark

ands that why they obtained a certificate of appropriateness for the historic preservation commission, which is making any modifications to a landmark and they consider that and they approve the shift for appropriateness and found it did not detract fr from the landmar. >> so it's in place and those who have jurisdiction over thosd looked closely at whether the or unanimoutheordinance was observd everything was fine. >> it was final. >> that's why i asked the question. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. this matter has been submitted. >> there's no indication that the modification was issued in error. >> this is de novo, right?

>> right. >> i think it was a cheiron and it used to be alioto field. i do agree with my fellow commissioner. >> i'll move to deny the appeal and up hold the modification on the basis that the criteria were met. >> we have a motion from the commissioner to deny the appeal and uphold the rear yard on the basis it meets three criteria under 134e. on that motion been commissioners? (roll call). >> so that motion carries 4-0

and an appeal is denied. thank you. >> we are now moving on to item number nine and this is a special item, consideration possible action by the board to request that the department of pub health review an update of june 14, memorandum. it's regarding the health effects and allegation o commun. >> for establishing context and for any viewers that might be viewing in and for the public record, if you have participated, watched this board fofor any period of time, you he experienced deliberations over wireless installation items. what is a constant as part of those deliberations is the claim

from the appellants that the 1997, i believe, fcc ruling that everything is healthy and square with regard to these installations is something of contention. and so, we're not experts in that area. we are not scientist, we're not physicists or biologists. and so we received this feedback from the public and it comes in volumes, copuous volumes from scientists that the fcc is way out of bounds on health issues and this thing should be reviewed, given, especially, that it's over 20 years later.

>> in 2010, they wrote an opinion on the exact subject that seems to be the great concern of many of appellants.

so will the commission support a formal request to the department of health to update what is an existing document that was created in 2010 and update it to 2019, given in this world of technology, just maybe we might know more in 2019 than we did in 2010. so that's the subject at hand.

>> if the department of public health finds something is horribly wrong with the fcc findings, i will call our attorney, mr. hererra, and maybe that's his call to do something legally with regard to the federal government as he has been known to do on other cases. >> so i agree with anne, i don't think it will have a change on our deliberation but at the same time it's hard to say in 1977 and 010. 2010. at least at this point, we can say we addressed that concern to the public health department and now it's stamped in 2019. granted, the results are still from 1997, but at least at this point, we would have addressed that going forward. >> i believe in being diligent

and asking the question. >> i'm supportive. make a motion. >> i should ask if there's any public comment on this item? >> would anyone like to speak? please come forward. you in the back. >> so i would like to make a motion formally request the department of public health to update the report of 2010 on of issue of the impact on wireless installations on health to the public. >> ok. so your motion would be, maybe, to tre direct me to send them a letter to update the june 14, 2010 memorandum. >> isn't that what i said? [ laughter ] >> pretty close. regarding the health effects of wireless communication's networks. ok, on that motion?

roll call (. >> that motion carries 4-0. >> and we're done.

good morning everyone. welcome to the home of your san francisco giants. applausthis is your official we. i am your pa announcer and i am happy to serve as your mc today. we are here to officially kickoff the first class of opportunities for all. [applause.] now our first jobs and our first paid internships are so important. for me as a graduate of mills college in oakland. thank you for that. oakland is in the house. mills is in the house. my first job upon graduation a million years ago, 1981, was