new venting would be in other space. these are not disclosed nor is permission received. since the subject unit cannot be subdivided we ask the board allow a conditional use permit. >> thank you very much. i have a question for you out of interest. how many people in your building live there, how many owners? >> two. >> two units which are rented out and two owner occupied. >> thank you we will now hear for the attorney for the permit holder. >> h. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you and good evening. i represent the permit holder. contrary to what the appellants indicated, this is a building

with three stories and originally to be a six unit building because the first floor consists of two units one and two afternoon the second floor is one unit, unit number three and third floor is just one unit, unit four. however, on the second and third floor there are two separate access doors to the unit and at the same time there has been installation of gas lines and plumbing to both the front part facing the ocean and the rear part facing the part of the unit. each unit third and fourth unit consists of four bedrooms. i believe the architect will

address this issue. i believe it was in the original plan this is intended to be a six unit building. for some reason at some point, the buildings have changed. the developers changed their mind and the building is two units on the first floor, one full unit on the second floor and the third one. now, appl applelant indicated violation of building code. we will address that. as far as i know, there has been no violation of building code because there is no encroachment upon the use of the other units because of the suggestion from the building inspector that they could use independent -- instead

of the hood for instance, there is no need to go into unit number one plumbing or the flu because you can use the independent filter system. what the appellant indicated is the violation of ccnr in terms of subdivision. there has been no intent to subdivide. ccnr section 2.4 indicates there should be no subdivision. however, subdivision is not defined. it goes on to define time share. time share as an interest in the

portion use of the unit. in the absence of a definition, we have to look to the planning commission, planning code section 207.3 subsection h. that is on page 6 of exhibit 2. it says an additional unit authorized under this section cannot be subdivided in a manner to allow an additional unit to be sold or separately financed pursuant to a condo plan or housing conversion or similar form of separate ownership. it was intended in the building code to mean separate interests. in terms of subdivision. in this case, ms. zhang has no

intentions to divide. what she intends to do is continue the use of unit number three the way she bought it in 2010 she bought unit three. it already had two sub units, 3b and 3a and a kitchen in both units and partition wall between the two units. in other words, dividing a four unit apartment into two, two bedroom units. she has no intention to anything else other than what she found the unit to be in 2010 when she purchased it. in fact, when she applied for a permit under the legalization

ordinance 43-14, she could not subdivide even if she wanted to because it was prohibited specifically prohibited in the legalization ordinance to sell to subdivide the property to the extent that it can be financially separately financed or separate ownership. she has no intention of doing that. what she intended to do is to continue the use of unit number 3 into two separate units. contrary to the appellant's indication there is no intent to create unit number five or unit number 3a or b.

it is the use of unit number 3 that she has intended to apply for in this particular permit process. the permit was issued in full compliance with the planning code and the building code more specifically in compliance with the legalization ordinance. there is no reason to deny this or to revoke this permit because of the scc r&r. more specificicly the ccnr is not clear. what is defined as subdivision is not clear. what is clear under the laws, under the ordinance and planning code that it cannot be subdivided. >> thank you. i have a question. >> as you stated it is legal

locally because we allow it in san francisco. your ccnrs are state documents. does it comply with the state's ordinance? >> it complies to the extent the city allows it. >> i ask you specifically does the state allow it? the local allows it. i am aware of that. state law is higher than local law and federal law is higher than state law. >> it is not specifically preempted by the state. >> second question. the appellant indicated for you to get this permit for the accessory dwelling or whatever it is called that you have to use common areas that belong to the hoa. how do you do that when it is not when that is not decided to

the client. >> the use of common areas that they object to in terms of encroachment. that is the common elements. >> maybe the architect has an answer for me. the appellant indicated for the required work to be completed it has to be in the common areas of the hoa. when you own the house you own the ground and to the sky and airways. in a condo you don't own the walls you own the space within the walls and the hoa owns the common areas. >> that's correct. we spoke with the city of san francisco planning department and they said that i think as of maybe two months ago bicycle parking was no longer necessary. we don't need bicycle parking.

>> you won't have encroachment. >> we don't need to change the door because it complies with the requirements. >> thank you for explaining that. >> can you fill out a speaker card, please. thank you. we will hear from mr. sanchez. >> that is within the rm1 zoning district. under the densing limitations and number of units would be four that is why this building was constructed in the 1980s as four unit. it was consistent with the maximum allowed at that time. one of the units converted to a condo was subdivided bringing the total from four to drive. as you know, within the last

four or five years or so there is substantial changes to provisions related to this. in the past it would have been more straightforward requirement every moving it because there was no way to legalize it they must remove it. now the law allows for legalization of the unit and requires it. once an illegal unit is created, it is illegal to remove it you need to go through conditional use authorization to authorize the dwelling unit. there is way path here forward to legalize it. we ask them to go through the process. they have the ability to request authorization to seek that to allow removal of the unit. the planning commission is about preserving housing. this is an additional unit for over a decade. i think generally we would look

at this and our recommendation of the planning commission would be to retain the unit. in this case they have gone through the process to legalize the unit and met the requirements to do so. one of the issues that is a point of contention is the bicycle parking in the garage or storage area at the rear which may be common area. it is correct that over the last few months the projects like this did not require this bicycle parking. you generally do want it as a matter of policy, but it could be removed from these plans if the board so chose to do. many issues raised are about the ccnr. the city does not enforce those. that is private between the parties. as far as the planning code and compliance nothing is raised by the appellant to indicate anything is not complying with the planning code requirements.

we request the board address the concerns raised over the bicycle parking the board may do so without violating the planning code that the bicycle parking can be removed if that is the board's wish. >> mr. sanchez because the a.d.u. is accessory to the primary residence it would not establish a separate unit. >> this is a five unit building. it may be called accessory. it is a new dwelling unit. accessory is the name. it creates a new dwelling unit. this can be an issue when you go from two units. >> my question is which may or may not apply. maybe not the building or planning code, but when you change the status to four to five unit building everything changes insurance changes,

mortgage definitely changes, because it is now two to four units is considered residential and five plus is a business. >> there are different requirements under the building code r3 versus r1. it is four units. there may be other issues going from four to five with regards to the property but the permit applies. >> this may be a building question. are they going to require sprinkler? >> that is for the department of building inspection. the issue about the subdivision and the language related to the legalization. they could not make a fifth condo out of this. >> it is the first time i heard five units. if it is four units a.d.u. how

is that a unit. >> adus are always a separate unit. it has been a couple years. >> it is awhile longer. >> let me just get this wrapped up to your point. really, by creating a second unit this cleans up a mess because it has already been used as a second unit, albeit illegal, because it is not recognized in any way, shape or form. secondly, the issue of intruding into the common area the bike requirement now can legally go away so the intrigue is not there. >> i think the appellant raised other issue. with bicycle parking that can be removed.

>> then the ccnr issue is not our business. also, the issues raised by fellow commissioners with regard to the building one number of units to another number of units, that kicks in potentially higher insurance. that really again is not in our purview to consider. thathatthat is a civil issue and between the hoa members, correct? >> correct. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. department of building inspection. the one thing i see that might be a possible problem for the permit holder is she signed an agreement stating they wouldn't have anybody but licensed contractors. that is because it is a

multi-unit building. they were allowed to pull the permit as an owner. the price is a little low, too. when the building inspector goes out there he is going to ask them to make adjustments to the valuation. >> is that a building inspection issue as opposed to ahoa issue? >> correct. >> that will be noticed as far as inspection red flag goes up, new requirement. we don't have to worry about that tonight? >> during the course of construction they will have an inspection. they will make sure things are done per the building code with fire ratings. i think the valuation is something it will fly or not. >> so the sprinkler issue we

don't have to determine tonight if indeed there is an issue of sprinklerring which would trigger a building-wide sprinklerring, that would have impact on the rest of the owners of the building and that would be the choice to continue? >> it would go through fire. fire did look through this. april 18, april 23rd it was approved. >> that is off the table? >> yes. >> one last question, senior inspector. >> i got all dressed up. you have got to ask me something. you have better hair than joe. >> the question is i thought the building department has a minimum mandate for such remodeling. if you are doing kitchen remodel i thought there was automatically a set fee at a minimum mungoing forward i thought it was $25,000.

>> there is a formula. that is for all over the united states. you know yourself work in omaha is not the same price as san francisco. they made adjustments in that regard. this was an existing illegal unit already. what are they doing? legalizing things so they might not put in a new kitchen. they might make it code compliant. that is why until the building inspector conducts a site visit we have no way of knowing. we go by what they put on the permit application. >> . >> these are not relevant to what you do? >> no. >> if somebody got wind of the project and came to you as the permit was going through the process and showed you the ccrs and made a case this was

in violation would that have an impact? >> no that is a civil issue. we are building code. scott and his team handle the planning stuff. we are building code issue. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> come on up. don't be shy. welcome. >> hi. i am betty lee, owner of unit number two. this is my home. i love our building. >> i am sorry. stop the time. i believe since she is just a member she is allowed to speak as member of the public comment. unless you are an officer of the hoa that is my understanding. when we have nonprofits. >> are you an officer of the hoa?

>> i am treasurer. >> unfortunately you are not able to speak as a private citizen. if the appellant wants to give his time up to you, he is welcome to. you are a member of the body at this point. >> thank you. >> googood evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am an owner. >> you are not an officer? >> no. my wife and i bought one of the units. mostly the contractor license. we about the our unit as four bedroom, four unit building. it was to be removed the kitchen and the wall. she never separated her unit

into two. now she came to ask. only one unit three. if it were approved based on inaccurate information she provided. she included space in the garage, biking space for bike parking space. we are asking to comply with the rules and bring the unit back to original form. the sprinkler system that is in the drawings, that will not work. you can only do one sprinkler system for the entire system. for the building to have two separate systems in case of a fire. if her unit goes off, -- if the unit goes on fire, then only one sprinkler system will go off. my wife and i have saved money

to buy a place to call home. we invested a lot of money. we have been doing a lot of work in making the best of the building in top shape. we would like this to be granted in our favor. they do not care about the well-being of the building and only monetary gains. >> in other public comment? we will move to rebuttal. mr. shulman. >> i will speak about there is not only an illegal kitch then is in the front part of unit three. what the attorney spoke about only a four unit building.

that is in the assessor's record from 1984 or 1983. we believe the encroachment in the garage and bike parking is no longerness. it is one of the ways the permit got approved in the first place. the issue is permission. you still when you are in an hoa it is up to you to do due diligence to know what is allowed to come and say i want to do this, i am applying for this permit it is up to us to talk about it. ms. zang hasn't appeared in two years. no questions about anything here. it is every time we try to ask a question, nothing. we understand the hoa situation is a civil issue, and we are

currently going through that process, but when we bought our units this is a four unit building. i didn't know when i bought this that unit three had a subdivision. now that i am hoa president i see the new plans and was told that somebody was renting in 3a and 3b. i was blown away. i would have probably never purchased the unit had i known that. i don't know where to go on this. i am not an attorney, but for us it is about the health of the building and how much time and effort we put in and i think having the five unit building here is just not what i signed up for and what the rest of the hoa signed up for either.

summer is being fined. that is a civil matter, an and i appreciate all of you time. that is all i have. >> i have a question. you understand that prior to the legislation in 2014 of october by now that once there is an inlaw it can no longer be removed. >> she can filed for can b condl use permit and do that. >> as much as i feel in pain for you guys, this is a civil matter. what is legal between the city and hoa is what is in the hoa. you know that once it is going to litigation no lender will touch it. that means no refinancing and no

reselling. >> isn't something to be sell about the mortgagees the one that put up the money. >> that is a civil matter for the co-owners. >> this can escalate over and over and keep going and be expensive. with the sprinkler systems. >> i think you should have a conversation with the co-owner. >> it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. >> you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> i just want to address your concerns. yes, it would be considered a separate unit, an additional unit. it remains square footage remains the same. for insurance purposes i it is e square footage that counts. number two, is it fair to the

other members of the hoa, no. allocation is based on percentage of ownership. they can reallocate the costs of maintaining the building. unit number three is the largest of all of the condos. they already pay more than anybody else. as to the concern about creating more people living in the use of common areas. it has been since my client bought the building in 2010. we don't know when this subdivision or sub units have been established. when she bought it was already there, and people have been

using the common areas. that doesn't mean it is not any different from legalizing any inlaw apartments in the city and there are thousands and thousands of them. it was intended to include residents and tenants of the illegal units to a legalized situation. this is no different. as to going back, i understand appellant would like to see removing the kitchen and returning it to the original plan. it is not possible under planning code 317 because the criteria to remove illegal units six or seven of them, the primary ones is that whether or not the owner of the property

lived in the unit. she has never lived in the unit. whether the unit is removing affordable housing, yes, it would be. she is renting the apartments for $2,300 per month. that is absolutely under market. you can never get to rent a two bedroom apartment facing the ocean for $2,300 per month. will that reduce the housing stock? of course, it would. with this criteria she will never be able to remove it. >> mr. sanchez anything further? mr. curren. >> bernie curren. to allay the fears the

appellants might have concerning the sprinkler system. that is in place. unless the walls or partitions are going to compromise the coverage of the sprinkler heads, this should be okay. that is why the fire department probably locater indicated over-the-counter like they did. >> when the sprinkler heads were installed i don't know when the property was put together, generally code changes. if you don't touch it, it is grandfathered in. if you touch it there is an upgrade. now the sprinkler requires every year. >> if you had to reconfigure it. when you shut down the sprinkler system the whole building has to be shut down. you can move the heads. i don't think you are increasing the capacity. you haven't added square footage, per se. >> by touching it, you are the inspector would a new permit mean?

>> i am not a fire inspector. i am telling you that for what is there, it is working. as long as they don't compromise the coverage area of the existing heads it shouldn't be an issue. >> this matter is submitted. >> well, i guess it is me. as mentioned this is a civil matter. the project is code compliant. i think personally this is going to end into a much bigger issue. if it goes to litigation, no one gets to sell or do anything. when you upgrade to a five unit building, the loan requirements are different. it requires higher owner occupancy. it is a code change. as far as i see i don't think that we can take this appeal.

>> i completely agree. i would encourage the parties to talk to each other especially before any complaints are filed in court. speaking as a lawyer that is the last thing that either of you want. for the reasons of the commissioner said and because it is expensive and delay resolution of this for a really long time. i encourage you to talk to each other. i don't know if there is space for compromise. maybe there isn't. take a hard look at the ccnr and if you think you can get a judge to force her to file for conditional use and look at what they are asking for and see if there is anything you can provide to make them communicate better. >> i have seen it as a realtor

for 21 years. buildings are in litigation for years and no one can do anything. you are not looking at each other. have a heart to heart. this is going to be a problem for anybody. >> commissioner lazarus? >> i think we can make it cleaner. i think we know where we are going with this. i suggest when you make your motion that you include accommodation to get rid of the bicycle racks and the obvious intrusion into the common space just to make it cleaner. >> you would be granting the appeal on the condition it be revised to remove the bike rack. >> that is what i just said. that is my motion. >> that motion from commissioner

honda. (roll call). that motion carries 4-0. thank you. >> we are moving to the next item. >> it is wise for me. you probably should leave this will not be done in 15 minutes. have a safe flight. thank you very much. >> in the interest of san francisco traffic we will give you an extra 15 minutes. >> item 10. commissioner has to leave. -- i'm sorry item 12. it is appeal number 19-069. ruth krumbhaar versus san francisco public works. 428amatury loop. appealing the issuance on

june 18, 2019 to gte mobile net of a personal wireless service facility. permit 18wr-0372. we will hear from the appellant first. >> thank you for being patient with us. four cases got off the books tonight otherwise you would be here for another two hours keeping us company. we love to be here. welcome. >> for clarification we are presenting together. >> you can share the time. you will have seven minutes to present and three minutes in rebuttal. go ahead whoever wants to speak first. >> there is a clock right in front. >> i am rhatany live at 2638 lion street with my teenage son. this is home to us and enjoyed by those in san francisco and

tourists all day every day. i would like to highlighter a fact. the address is being used for installation is defective. 428amatury loop is two miles away from the location on lions street. you will see the location comes up. it is all that has used that address. verizon and the parties associated with us acknowledged the address problem and argued there is time to understand the truth. they have indicated under article 25 of the public works code they fulfilled the obligation to inform and we dispute this. they say a dozen residents communicated with dpw. if you count the number of people there is a lot more than

12. we learned some neighbors just begun to understand where this is going. they thought the mailing was a mistake as we initially did and we believe others have nod why of the actual proposed location. we believe they conveniently chose this address for the location of the cell tower to confuse public and neighbors and to get away with placing something in one of the most historic and visited sites in the entire city. >> overhead please. >> hello. my name is jane newman. this facility this is a lion street corridor. it is the lion street steps. one of the san francisco most popular visitor and tourist landmarks and an area i have lived in. i moved there originally 50

years ago. i now own the house at 2626 lion street. this facility is going to be 50 feet in front of my house on the other side of the street. it is on the outside of the prevideo right on the street. it is not two miles from the address they listed. i have lived there over 15 years. i love living there. it is beautiful, as you can see this would be built the heart of the beautiful lion street steps neighborhood. if this project rubber stamped as it appeared is an ongoing process, i feel personally it is fraudulent and deceptive and disingenuous. it appears it has been routinely

approved and not taken into consideration the unique aspect of this popular and beautiful part of san francisco. i witness every day 365 days a year a flow of people, neighbors, tourists who come to this lion street step corridor and enjoy the location and the uniqueness of our neighborhood. i do feel that it is we are frustrated. it is your duty to protect this unique neighborhood. this is one like the painted ladies or the lombard street, and it is one of those beautiful individual parts of san francisco that we love. please overturn this approval of this facility. >> thank you.

good evening. thank you for your time. i am susan de silva. my husband and i reside at 2550 lions street with our three young children. i would like to address the aesthetic concerns we have. the telling lecommunication companies believes that they had virtually absolute right to install new wireless facilities without complying with the aesthetic standard. the challenge that is aesthetic standard through the california court system. as we know, they lost. the california supreme court recently upheld the ordinance within the local power of the city to protect as theftstics. it -- aesthetics.

the state appellate court specifically noticed the city power to protect the local aesthetics and landmarks. those opposing us seem to believe the court decisions have no import. we disagree. we believe the reasoning of the state courts emphasize the inheroin local power to protect aesthetics. we are deeply concerned about the aesthetics and the negative impact the 5g wireless facility would have on this beautiful historic landmark in san francisco. we want to preserve the character of this historic lime street steps neighborhood. san francisco's beauty is critical to the tourist industry and the reason people and businesses want to locate here. thank you for your attention.

>> members of the board i am cathy u. i own the house right next to jeanies. it is about 100 feet away from this facility. we believe the san francisco ordinance imposes a duty to protect aesthetics in each individual case. as we highlight in our belief the ordinance was to require protection of aesthetics including the lion street corridor. as we emphasize it requires affirmative determinations with specific determinations it does not interfere. >> thank you you will have time on rebuttal. that was thought divided equally. you can go first in rebuttal. >> thank you we will hear from the permit holder.

>> you are earning your money tonight, counselor. >> thank you. we submitted a very large package to you, exhibit g. we were required by the planning department and department of public works to use this address. it appears as first or second line of the notice. the notice packet contains photo simulations of the facility which people will turn to when they first receive the notice and shows views up and down lions street. we think that the notice was received, the appellants appeared. there were 12 respondents of the

50 notices we sent. they were sent in 50-foot radius around the pole itself. there were protesters at the protest hearing and tonight. we feel the notice was adequate even though it referred to an address provided by the planning department and department of public works. if the notice is defective which it was not in this case. the california state law says it would prejudice somehow the appellates. we don't believe they are prejudiced. that it caused injury to the appellants which we don't think occurred and would have to cause the result to change this address difference. we don't think that also is a difference with the address difference created that problem because we don't think the notice was defective. in addition to the mail notice

there is posted notice and the three pictures up and down the street where this notice was on the poles on lions street that happened twice. with respect to design and aesthetics. i think you remember omar massey we spent years coming up with this design for the city and the design was copied by at&t and other carriers. it went to the historic commission and architectural review committee to receive comment. we included the entire packet omar prepared for the commission and they rejected certain designs and accepted this particular design. it is here in front of well traveled locations in front of city hall. in this case it will raise the

height of the existing poll by less than two feet. the radios are 10 inches wide and 5 inches deep. it is a design we have replicated from the stock exchange to pacific heights to this particular location. we think it is the direct design. it has a hill behind it and wall. it is not affecting anyone's view. the closest home is 60 feet away. the emissions are extremely low. with that we just close by saying, yes, the address is obscure, but it was received, reviewed, no prejudice. we don't believe it would change the result. the notice clearly brought forth the concern in review so there was public dialogue. we don't believe that it -- we

believe the planing commission determines that it does not impair the attributes of the neighborhood. we can answer any questions you would have. >> thank you. we will now hear from department of public works. >> good evening, i am representing public works. we believe this was issued in compliance with the permit procedure in article 25. it requires public works refever wireless applications to department of public health and planning department. they issued tentative approval and the applicant mailed in the notice. there were protests.

following the hearing they approved the permit and nose of determination was sent to the public. planning department is in appearance. we are available to take questions and respond to e-mail. thank you. >> i have a question. i can't remember if you were here or not. we had a chase on church street. during that case the address that was given for the actual site and where it actually was was different similar to this particular case. how far is the next address on this particular case? >> good question. i will read public works order 184504. section 211. correct address for each utility and transit and streetlight pole

to be used in connection with the wireless facility. this correct address in the case, well, i have a powerpoint to show you guys. i appreciate you guys staying late. >> no worries. >> they are getting paid more than we are. i know that. >> overhead, please. so the location of the proposedded equipment on the pole is right there. as you can see, it is adjacent to the procee pro procedio. we go to the website and type it in. it shows the location of the pole. if you look into property information for that particular

address, you will see it is all-in-one parcel. 130-0001. all acceptable addresses for this parcel pertain to this list. 200 addresses. the address on the top is 428 amatury loop. that is how we came up with the address. the posting and mailing affidavits contain two photos that show the exact location of the pole and what it would look like on the pole. that is exhibit d and e, the mailing and posting affidavit. the appellant had said that the nearest closest address is i believe a half-mile. i can't remember exact. 2.1 miles. >> people use different mapping. it could be incorrect

information. >> what would 432 on the amatury loop be. >> you have wi-fi can you google 432. i want the next address. 432. >> hold on.

what is the thing across the street? last time we got the air. >> it looks like the network is down. >> that is fine. what is 432 amatury loop? in comparison to 428, how far is that? >> thank you. >> upon looking at -- it is

loading. it is loading the same parcel. wait for it to load. >> i am fine. thank you. don't worry. we are done. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> surprised you were not googling the address. i have the same question, by the way. >> i know you did. in regards to the review of this, our staff analysis did review the application and the planning protected location and zoning protected location because the parcel was in front

of it was on public. the adjacent are residential properties. that would trigger the review. in terms of planning because the presidio is a resource. it did not detract or degrade from the character of that was necessary to establish it was a historic resource. the pole design is similar and something widely employed by verizon and often found not to be an issue in historic districts. our review was appropriate. the questions that came to the address which took me a little bit by surprise today trying to find out where the property was located. with the parcel information map, it lists every known address

within the presidio. it is quite extensive. i will put it on the overhead to give a sense of it. it is just how it is formatted in here. it is pretty expensive. it happens to be 428 is am take bet am takeisalphabetically fir. there are other addresses associated with this. you would come up with this property as well. i can only find one lions street that came up with this property. it was not at in location. it was on the 2900 block. in establishing the appropriate address, it was relied on the first address listed on this

parcel and that is how it came to be. i have some questions. >> i am available for questions. >> if that is the chosen address by the planning department. the if the project sponsor chose that address. >> standard operating procedures. it is consistent how they apply it. >> maybe it will be the dpw if you are not able to answer it. >> shouldn't there be notification for the whole parcel. >> if it is not specific where that is. as a layman property owner, if i get a notice in the mail my add joining neighbor wants to do remodeling and it is 30 blocks away, okay, i don't need to look

at that and to it in the trash can. >> i would assume the notice is giving people information about something within close proximity to them. i don't know if it says it is within x number of feet of the property. >> we will say the property address and the property is within 150 feet of your property. i don't know if the extent of the public works notice. i didn't discuss this with them earlier. i wasn't aware of the addressing issue until today. >> it just came to me i have the same issue with church street. i let that go and didn't think it was appropriate at that time and not now. >> are you done?

>> i apologize. what strikes me here is that using federal land. the presidio is not san francisco. it is not applicable to san francisco. the liquor laws are different. everything is different. the use of an address on federal land to me is a different jurisdiction and it has nothing to do at all. you are either on federal land or san francisco land. federal land is like another country. >> you give up your rights as a u.s. citizen the same rules do not apply.

>> you know, the rules on one side of that wall are different than the rules on the other side of that wall. the use of that address. you are in a different country and jurisdiction and it is really slopy. how do you read that? we are talking about an address that isn't on federal property but a pole that is in san francisco. the question to the planning department is it in san francisco or is it on the federal planned? >> the pole is in san francisco subject to our jurisdiction and permit projects. we have you identify the property it is in front of. it is in front of the presidio. one of my concerns and i did have concerns about the