Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 1, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT

7:00 pm
>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. >> they will place us on item 21 discretionary review. >> good evening. this is going to be a little bit longer than the typical presentation. david winslow, steph architect. the item before you is a public initiated requests for discretionary request for discretionary review for building permit location -- for the building permit application to construct a 20 story vertical addition, a rear horizontal addition and façade alterations to a existing two story one family residence. the requesters -- the first,
7:01 pm
stephen chan, the jason neighbor to the west of the proposed project is concerned that the proposed height of the vertical addition is not compatible with the residential design guidelines. the proposed alternatives are setbacks to the third floor so that the scale matches other buildings on the block and does not block light and secondly to move the elevator so it does not -- to match his a little existing light well on the west side. the second d.r. requester, a neighbor to the south of the proposed project is concerned
7:02 pm
with the proposed addition is a demolition and should be reviewed as such, and number two , the measurement of the project height is erroneous and exceeds the allowable height prescribed by the planning code and that the proposed addition is not compatible with the following residential design guidelines. to his proposed alternative is to limit the fourth floor. public comment to date, the department his receipt four letters and opposition in four letters in support of the project. the department's analysis and recommendation, demolition counts were provided and staff reviewed and determined this is not a demolition of the planning code. it has provided a site survey by
7:03 pm
a licensed property surveyor that addresses the slope and the site relative to the building height. the residential design advisory team review confirmed that with respect to light impact to the adjacent d.r. requester's side yard setback, a perfect merging alignment is not typically required but typical to allow some buildings extension into the side yard. extends forefoot eight beyond the d.r. requester's end wall of his side setback and is open and clear to the rear. as such, we did not see an extraordinary conditions with respect to matching of the light well. the original review recommended illuminating the fourth floor and the reduction of the rear expansion to provide a massing transition between the adjacent buildings. at this points, the proposed third floor was set back from the front building while 11 and
7:04 pm
a half feet on the setback of the adjacent neighbor. it was assumed to be adequate. in response, the project sponsor reduced the size of the fourth story and reduced the massing at the rear to the neighbor to the east but moves the third wall forward. staff determine the size on the location to be minimally visible and allow it to go out for neighborhood notification. the topography of the site renders this massing about two and a half stories above grade at the rear because of the up sloping of the lot. staff recommended further refinements and modifications to the third story massing to address the scale at the street and the pattern and scale of buildings as they stepped down the street. following adjustments were
7:05 pm
requested. one, match the setback the proximally 8 feet of the third floor to the adjacent neighbor to the west, to the midpoint of the façade of the mid-floor, setback the remainder of the third floor by 4 feet and set -- i'm sorry, lower the third floor ceiling height by 1 foot to reduce the massing, and eliminate the parapet above the third floor to also reduce its massing. also illuminating the overhang of windows above the third floor and raising the parapet of the second floor to mask the massing of the third floor. it also recommends modifying window proportions to relate to the surrounding pattern of the windows. it sets a new -- a project sponsor responded to some but not of -- not all of these suggestions. it sets a new precedent and
7:06 pm
stuff i additional measures be taken to comply with the residential design guidelines in relation to the d.r. requester's issues related to the building scale of the street. specifically the measures that were not in that packet. staff recommendation is to take d.r. and approve the project with those modifications. that concludes my presentation and i'm here to answer questions thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the d.r. requester number one. it doesn't matter which one. come on up.
7:07 pm
>> this portion of 26th street is a well-established pattern of houses that are up to three levels on the street with for -- third floors being a setback as noted in the d.r. they are -- there are seven properties around the subject property all the way up to douglas street that have third-floor setbacks that are consistent with each other, as you can see here. the project proposes a four level structure of almost 4,000 square feet and includes five bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, two family rooms and in addition to a living room. the fourth floor which is entertainment space with a wet bar, this fourth floor
7:08 pm
negatively impacts the surrounding properties, reducing air, light, and privacy, particularly to adjacent properties in the two setbacks to the rear. it will also shade some of the solar panels of the upper neighbors. it is contrary to the zoning guidelines and would establish a new precedent. this is excessive and not consistent with the height and bulk of the homes in the area. the third floor setback requirements were established long ago and renovations in the area in the past and recently including the other d.r. requester's home has complied with these setbacks, which are reflected in appearance today of the street. applicant his claim the fourth floor is not visible from the street, but this is not the case it is obscured from one angle since they moved the third floor
7:09 pm
, and included a parapet extending to the top of the third floor. it is still visible from most any other vantage on the street. if you take a few steps to the right or left, from the uphill, you would plainly see the third floor and the fourth floor extending up. from the other side you would also see both of these. if the parapet was removed, would be even more visible. there is substantial neighborhood opposition to this. currently there are 47 neighbors that have signed or sent letters in opposition of this project which includes 301 households on the same block or cross the street of the project. in the mediation meeting on july 17th with applicants, the d.r. requester and the planning manager, mr. winslow reviewed the file and said the d.r. requester his had valid points and that it did not comply with residential guidelines. from his review, was unclear how this project was approved.
7:10 pm
he noted that the p.d.r. require the project sponsor to illuminate the fourth floor. however, this was not done and it was unclear exactly how this was pushed through. after the meeting, the d.r. analysis report appear to do an about-face and presented an awkward partial setback of the third floor and reduction or removal of the parapet but no mention of the third floor -- the fourth floor. this last-minute proposed plan fails to involve the substantial problems. we were surprised to see this proposal particularly after david's comments in the meeting, so after the meeting i reviewed the record and created -- and it was unclear how exactly this plan was pushed through. the applicant referred to the fourth floor as the third floor, which is confusing and improperly portrays a project is smaller than it really is. the applicant move the third
7:11 pm
floor forward to the street and added the parapet so the third floor obscured the smaller fourth floor, instead of resolving the fourth floor issue , this created another setback issue which is why we're here today with two d.r. on these issues. i also found in the file review a letter from the applicant sent after the meeting in which the applicant says he is seeking legal council and says to david, and i quote, in the meeting with the d.r. requester, you suggested there was error that may have been made. if you plan to bring such a claim to commission, i want to see the documentation how the error was made despite the thorough review. obviously this represents significant sloppiness and unprofessionalism on the part of the planning department. this would be an opportunity for me to highlight how acceptable this is. this is not have planning should be conducted. the design guidelines and planning department decision should not hinge on veiled
7:12 pm
threats from bullying applicant. it was already admitted the plan did not comply and there are two considerable issues that have not been resolved, and furthermore, there is no compelling reason to depart from the established residential design guidelines, even illuminating the third floor and doing a proper third-floor setback, the applicant can achieve at least 30500 square feet, five bedrooms, family room , and four-point five bathrooms as shown here. this project is excessive, negatively impacts neighbors and unnecessarily sets any precedent thank you for your consideration >> thank you. thank you very much. will now hear from the second d.r. requester. >> hello. i am the owner of the house directly up the hill. this is the photograph i took of the street. you can notice the topography. we are on a hill and every bit
7:13 pm
-- building steps down. my house is this red one. it has a setback third-floor. you really can't even see it from here. this house also has a setback. the proposed house that is coming in would be three floors to the front. it also creates a light issue where -- i have not seen the revised plans. the other thing that i think -- that is one piece, and as david mentioned, the light well, this area right here, there is an overlap or the elevator is encroaching on the light will. and lastly, maybe a minor issue, i will point out in terms of the parapet, there are 16 houses, 13 of them have entrances on the second floor, by revising this façade, if it is flipped, it is removed -- this tree is removed.
7:14 pm
and it potentially reduces a parking spot. i know that is all structured into the guidelines. it might be worth taking a look at. for me, my request is the third floor setback -- as is, this house will cast a shadow in the morning on my whole house and block every window on the left side of my house. i am sort of okay with that. he has a right to build something, but i am requesting that we do the setback and lower the structures as much as possible. would be nice to see over the structure. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester his? come on up. >> my name is lorraine.
7:15 pm
good evening. i feel it necessary to speak with you in opposition. >> please speak into the microphone. i am a 23 year resident and i see this project as an example of a disturbing trend that pushes the limits of height, overall size in relation to surrounding homes and design guidelines. the existing home is probably less than 1,000 square feet. while i cannot determine the square footage of the proposed home, i get it costs or four times that size. the impact to light and green space and privacy is considerable. there are no surrounding homes. this is not a precedent that should be set in the neighborhood. indeed there is precedent for not allowing a fourth level at all. while i understand the property owner's right to demolish the
7:16 pm
existing home and build a new modern building, i would hope that this can be done with respect for the surrounding neighbors and the larger neighborhood in which i assume they intend to live. i urge the planning commission to take discretionary review and not allow this fourth floor of this project to be built. thank you.
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
>> i want to remind you that -- i know it has been a long day, earlier in the day, you actually eliminated the fourth floor for a different request, and that was 900 square feet. here we are just asking for a very small portion that is considered labelled as family room. this is the second family room. families don't need to have two family rooms. if they need two family rooms, it should not be a menace to the surrounding neighbors.
7:19 pm
just to illustrate my point, i am just putting down the section of the plan. overhead, please. this is the before, this is how it is today, and this is what the project sponsor wants to do. you may recall that a year ago we had a similar thing, and the neighbors called it a crows nest , that fourth floor that was a very little thing on 2302 -- on 2302 clifford. we don't need to have over 4,000 square feet, four floors, an absolute anomaly for this part
7:20 pm
of the valley. particularly if you ever pass by ongoing 26th street. it is a very steep street. if you get on top of this street , which his properties very close, you would not even be able to see the fourth floor. think of it this way. this is almost 9:00 p.m., we are here because we are trying to get you to eliminate 366 square feet. this is a drop in the bucket. please consider admitting that and please give us the front setback that the other d.r. requester has asked. i think it amounts to 188 square feet. again, we're talking about chump change when you're dealing with big projects like this. i wish that neighbors were more considerate in terms of when to do their buildings. think about the people that you are going to be living next to. thank you so much. my time is up. this is the last time you will see me this week. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
7:21 pm
>> hello. my name is chris. projects like these are unreasonably large. they don't take into account the character, the aesthetic of the neighborhood, and they are a nuisance to light of privacy of all surrounding neighbors. therefore they don't benefit the community in any way. therefore i oppose these projects. thank you for your time. >> thank you. any other public comment? in favor of the d.r. requester his? >> that evening, commissioners. i am an architect. i have lived in the valley for over 30 years. i took a look at this project. it seems that it is a large project.
7:22 pm
it is a large vertical and horizontal addition. the top floor is a small entertainment room. they label it as a family room, but there is also a family room on the ground floor. i think personally houses that have two family rooms are divisive for family rather than creating a sense of community and family gathering. there is some confusion about whether it is three stories or four stories. the building code deals with great plain, and the basement is considered a story and then the first story above that plane looks at it differently. it certainly looks like a four story building when you look at the façades. i think the top floor is small. it doesn't seem like the neighbors are asking for a lot. they would like to accept this
7:23 pm
new person to be a neighbor and are asking for a setback in the front to comply with the next her neighbor and protect light and ventilation, and they would like to not have a roof deck, which is mostly what the top floor is. it seems like it is a large roof deck and a small room up there. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. with that, we'll hear from the project sponsor. >> thank you. i'm travis murdoch, thank you for staying so late and spending time with me this evening. can you put up the projector, please? i'm a physician. i work as an investor and my wife is a nurse. we move five years ago from
7:24 pm
canada. we have many relatives from canada. many of whom are our coming to visit us. we are planning on having three kids. we have one, we have one on the way. this is a project for us, 100%, with the intent to stay in a city and stay in the neighborhood that we really love much to say about our top floor, which we have refined and diminished in size quite significantly. it is a very important space for us for the three reasons. one is it is a family room, there is a small family room in the basement which will be used by my parents when they are staying there. the second point is that it is a separated space that i can use for business meetings, and i get a further guest bedroom when our families in town. you may have heard that people were upset about the project. many have actually written letters in support, including the neighbor to the east east. i should note i saw his note
7:25 pm
that he had a red. on the place to the east, but in fact, the neighbor who is the renter who is supportive of this project and tells us she was actually misinformed when he came back and that she wouldn't have signed the prewritten letter that he gave her had it not been for him being pushy. another example, a neighbor across the street owns two properties and lives in one is very supportive of the project as it stands. the assertions about this fourth floor are completely -- are completely flawed. others have suggested that it significantly affects their air, late, and privacy and that it somehow is a menace to the neighborhood, that is not the case. in fact, if you look at where he is, the neighbors directly to the rear, about 100 feet away, they are uphill from us, this is the reason why code 261 exists.
7:26 pm
additionally, if you look at the plans, we are setback to maintain the mid block light. we are set back setback from the sides, as well as setting back from the front property line by 27 feet. none of the four-story properties on the street were shown in the other presentation, however in fact, there are four four-story properties that are in close approximation to us down the hill. there is another in planning with a plan to go to four stories. i suspect it will be approved. hopefully you have seen the 3d three images we have provided to really demonstrate how this
7:27 pm
property is in keeping with character of the neighborhood. is concerning to me that there's been so much misrepresentation there of. i am deeply looking forward to meeting this neighbor. we tried it length to come to terms with him on the front setback. that was not a walking up and down the block and discussing the character of the neighborhood. that was standing on his roof and seeing how it affected views what we propose, i tried to spend time with him last week, and it was to articulate back and provide some setback and relief for him in terms of light , will also eliminate -- limiting the front roof deck. what you can see is -- we are
7:28 pm
stepping down the block, more a 2-foot stepped down on the third level versus his level to the west, but also, you know, creating some dynamic and a very positive dynamic for the neighborhood. finally i mentioned that, you know, the actual setback of the third floor are very inconsistent on the block and hopefully what you can see here is that we have struck a balance between the rear setback that he has proposed, which is actually beyond his neighbor to the west, and the neighbors to our east. ultimately, this relates to private views given that the proposed top floor is not visible and we are articulating the third floor back, and so we are trying to be good neighbors and we're trying to -- we have made substantial changes. i truly want this project to go forward because i have a family and we are currently in a very small two bedroom, one bathroom,
7:29 pm
but i also feel compelled that -- to make changes that seem reasonable. at this point, these changes don't seem reasonable to me. i want to say i really appreciate mr. winslow's continue discussions with us in support. >> thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. d.r. requester his, you each get a two minute rebuttal. >> first off, i merely spoke with neighbors, if they agreed to it, they signed it. i didn't push anyone into anything. she changed her mind, i wonder why, but it is certainly her
7:30 pm
entitlement to change her mind. as far as the other properties, they are not -- they are actually three-story homes. the garages are not part of the house, they are three level houses. the entire house is set setback of a steeply sloped hill. sloped more steeply than his. they're not similar in situation or anything similar to his house and they are built between 191915. they are truly not relevant to today's discussion. clearly the design guidelines that were applied to other recently renovated homes were not similarly applied to this property. it is important the design guidelines adhered to and report consistently to ensure consistency and avoid issues like this and inevitably multiple d.r. his. they are not thoughtful designs
7:31 pm
and they failed to consider. there's no compelling reason to depart from residential guidelines. and even removing the fourth floor, there is 30500 square feet with five bedrooms and a family room and four and a half bathrooms, which is more than enough for any growing family. these are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and i urge the commission to take d.r. and properly advise -- apply the property guidelines. thank you. >> thank you. >> i lived in that house for five years, it was a remodel. it was like that when i got there. i did a dig out into a man cave, but that is about it. the one thing i will say is that it was -- this is about light. this has some architectural light windows and we have great light.
7:32 pm
the stuff that he will build will block everything, anyway. it doesn't matter. we are propagating it because if you look at his plans, all of the windows are on that side. there is a deck there, there's windows, windows, windows in the fourth floor is above this, too. i think it is -- i don't think it is fair to say this is about views when this is about living, light and, you know, we will not have any views from that sight anyways. i have given up on that. it is ironic you can say that and his whole west side of the home, or eastside of the home is about windows and view. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a rebuttal. >> thank you for your patience. i know you are all tired. we did put a deck on the west side of the back. that was intentional to give
7:33 pm
some release -- relief to our neighbors to the east. east. we did not -- what i would say is that the scope and size of this home is entirely in keeping with the models. the square footage, as contemplated, it is less then his home. and then he dug out his basement i understand that it is potentially a bigger property then some other homes, and some of us need larger spaces, which is why i am embarking on this. without needing this, i wouldn't be here. i would have acquiesced to their demands. so i think what we are doing is really trying to be neighbourly and at the same time, we continue to give them changes in
7:34 pm
there seems to be nothing on the other side. i appreciate all of you staying late for this and spending time. i know it is likely more mundane than some of the serious issues that you handle. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners? >> mr. moore? >> reading staff recommendations , i see several versions of your recommendation. you looked at the report again and trying to balance them with the d.r. requester his and public comment. i still see a number of issues, which i don't think have been addressed. one of the issues is the
7:35 pm
reduction of third story height by one additional foot, increase the width of the setback at the third floor addition and raising the window cells to bring the proportional glass more in keeping with the pattern in the neighboring buildings. could you elaborate on that in what form of the project as submitted mrs. out on those issues? -- project as submitted mrs. out on those issues? >> we want to make a building fit within its context and it is just that, it is iterative. is a constant call and response. in this case, the last call and response with of the outstanding
7:36 pm
items that you just enumerated, was the suggestion that i gave in light of the d.r. to the project sponsor in an attempt to make this project fit the design guidelines with respect to the scale of the street. the simple first request would be match the exact line of the existing adjacent setback. okay, there is another way of achieving that same goal. let's try this out. match it, do it and extent, mask it, lower the height, et cetera. those three items or items that were enumerated and elected by the project sponsor, but i included it as my recommendation for the commissioners to take d.r. and impose those conditions >> thank you for explaining how you are doing it and thank you for also going to minimize
7:37 pm
massing. if a massing in context is an issue, which we didn't discuss ad nausea him every thursday, and it is 9:00 p.m., plus we have done it probably ten times today, i would have to say that simply looking at the massing that it is, it is far too large for where it is. there are other issues which i have issues with, but i have reviewed their only two simple ideas. either the project contracts and modulates itself. it takes the essence of the
7:38 pm
neighborhood away by not looking at what is at the core of why we have guidelines. i think at this moment the project as proposed is not, from my perspective meet those objectives. >> commissioner fung? >> mr. winslow, if the fourth floor was removed, would you have the same recommendations? >> yes. >> from the rereview perspective , to our perspective, it is small, it is that back, it is minimally invisible. the real issue is the scale of the street. the project sponsor showed illustrations of buildings down the street that might be approaching the three and four story scale, but the immediate
7:39 pm
neighbors are the two story with the exception of the buildings to the east or west uphill, and those have third story setbacks. we were trying to at least say that is the standard of if you are going to be adding a third story, that is what you need to match. >> commissioner moore? >> one of the questions that would be worth entertaining here is we are talking about appropriate sizing. and well we are fully supported for multifamily living and really growing families, when you convert an existing neighborhood to building from 1,000 to 4,000 square feet in an r.h. one, in other cases you're taking the side view and more specific measures to bring that building.
7:40 pm
4,000 square feet is very large, or we are basically reducing the square footage to exist in an r.h. one to adhere to context. >> commissioner richards? >> i moved to take d.r. and approve a project with a modification that mr. winslow made with the fourth floor. >> second. >> i will say that i actually have no issues with the fourth floor because of the topography of where the house is. i do support all of mr. winslow 's recommendations i think the issue, in terms of the context of the three and the massing, i think where the problem is is the bay windows on the third floor. i don't think that the fourth floor is actually -- it makes no sense to me. i don't know why you would need a fourth floor. it is so tiny.
7:41 pm
i have no issues with it. i am wondering if we have two more commissioners to vote on this because, can you guys come back? >> there is a motion, if you want. >> commissioner richards? >> i made a motion to take d.r. to take the project as proposed. >> there is a motion that has been seconded -- >> his commissioner moore? >> the fourth floor also has a roof deck. where are we with that? >> i don't support the roof deck it is not necessary. >> you are were talking about the roof deck? >> i have no issue.
7:42 pm
>> i made the motion and i will remove the roof deck. >> no, you misunderstood. take the fourth floor off and then there is no roof deck. >> no roof deck on the third floor. >> let me clarify. there is a proposed roof deck as a setback of the front of the third floor. i don't know that anyone has issue with that. what you're talking about is the roof deck at the top of the uppermost floor would be eliminated. [laughter] i know it is late. >> very good. if there is a moat -- there is a motion to be seconded. >> hold on a second. we are giving fellow commissioners time to catch up. >> the roof deck sits on the
7:43 pm
third floor. >> it sits on the fourth floor. >> we're getting rid of the fourth floor. i thought you amended the motion -- >> there is a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and approve the project with staff recommended modifications and removing the fourth floor, thereby removing access. on that motion. [roll call]
7:44 pm
>> so moved. that motion passes 4-2. okay. that is all, folks. >> okay, we are done. you zack mac
7:45 pm
>> good evening, welcome to the august 28th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rig swig will be the presiding officer tonight he is joined my daryl honda and eduardo santacana. we expect vice president shortly and commissioner rachel tanner is absent. to my left is jana clerk who will provide the board with legal advice this evening. at the controls is the boards legal process clerk and i'm julie rosenberg, the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city department that have cases befored board this evening. we have in the front, scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and
7:46 pm
planning commission. we have chief building inspector, mauriceo hernandez and sen erin respec inspector be kernin and we have the environmental health branch of department of public-health. the board meeting guidelines are as follows, the board request you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants. permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the three or seven-minute periods. members not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit
7:47 pm
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. four votes are required to grants and appeal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we're located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be row broadcast on channel 26 on friday. the video can be downloaded. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking the oath. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give
7:48 pm
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. please be seated. so, commissioners, we have four housekeeping items. the first item is number 7. this is appeal number 19 -- 064 concerning the subject property at 1072filber street and it's been withdrawn by the appellant. next, we have a reordering of the agenda. item number 11. this is 19-016. the parties have reached an agreement so they will address the board after item number 5 is heard. next item number eight, this is appeal number 19-082. the parties would like to continue this matter to novembe. since it is on the publishe pubd agenda, you would need to vote to continue it. >> i'll make that motion. >> so we have a motion from
7:49 pm
commissioner honda to continue this matter to november 6th. is there any public comment on this motion? seeing none. on that motion, commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries. 3-0 and that matter is continued to november 6th. next we have item number 9. this is appeal number 19-074. the parties would like to continue this matter to novembed a vote. >> i make that motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue that to november 11th. is there any public comment on that item? seeing none. on that motion, commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 3-0. so, 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 but it's not on tonight'tonight's calender. is there anybody here for
7:50 pm
general public comment? seeing none. there's no public comment. we'll move on to item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners? >> i'd like to congratulate our secretary for retiring. he is not here right now. >> we can do that on item number 4. >> sorry. didn't mean to go out of line. is there any public comment on commissioner honda's comments? so we'll move on on t onto the n of the minutes. the minutes of the august 7th, 2019 board meeting. >> commissioners? motion. so we have a motion -- is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? we have a motion. on that motion, commissioner santacana? >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> ok, so that motion carries
7:51 pm
3-0. we'll move on to item number 4. this is recognition of the board's legal assistant, gary can atra and gary was not feeling well so he was unable to attend. i want to say briefly it's been a pleasure. i know he will watch the video later so i want to say it's been a pleasure working with gary. he is a hard-working team player and he really taught me a lot when i started this position. he is a person of integrity and provides excellent customer service. is we're really going to miss him. additionally, i received comments from the former executive director, cynthia goldstein, she indicated she wanted to add her congratulations and that she feels very fortunate to have worked with gary. she found him to be a wonderful colleague who provided excellent service to the public on behalf of the board. at this point, is there any
7:52 pm
public comment on this item? >> thank you, planning department. i want to reiterate i had enjoyed working with gary. the board staff is excellent and i think the public. he brings out the best and shows the best attributes of a public servant. he is fair, knowledgeable, diligent, responsive and going to miss him but congratulate him and hope his days are retirement are better than his first day. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> sarah hoffman, i'm an attorney who appears every now and then i would love to echo the thoughts from julie and scott that gary is very much going to be missed. what i was starting in this area he was a wealth of knowledge to me and for any of my colleagues. we do wish him all the best. we thank him for his years of service.
7:53 pm
>> thank you. >> paul britain. i worked with gary for over a decade and we're going to miss him. every step of every appeal before the board. he has been a tremendous a help in-person and over the phone and with documents of my staff all a dooadore him. we wish him well and appreciate all he has done to help the city and help the process move forward over the last decade plus. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? any commissioner comments? >> sure. i'd like to lead off, you know i have something from the mayor. i'll upstage the mayor. we get weekly basis, this is only half of it, all the people work though comes in from the public. we as commissioners, we serve the public and the city.
7:54 pm
we serve the appellants and we serve the permit holder and anybody else that needs assistance in pushing their agenda forward. the person who actually pushes the agenda forward is the staff. gary has been amazing because he has to sort through all the stuff and there's a ton of it. literally, this will go about 2. and it's really hard work and gary has made my life tremendo tremendously more easy, helping me get through my work and therefore he has made the public's work easier and we appreciate his support. i would like to read a certificate of honor august 28th, 2019 whereas behalf
7:55 pm
of the city and county of san francisco i'm pleased to recognize and honor gary for more than 13 years of service to the city and county of san francisco. your dedication to the operations and success of the san francisco boar board of apps is commendable. your support has been integral to the efficiency, equity and development of the san francisco board of appeals and our city therefore i have set my hand and caused the seal of the city and the county of san francisco to be affixed london breed, mayor of san francisco. congratulations, gary. thank you for all your service to all of us. commissioners -- >> yes, i also would like to reiterate the same. gary has been great over the years that i've been here. he has been the second person had that seat since i've been here for seven years and he will
7:56 pm
be missed. >> thank you. we're going to move on to item number 5. this is appeal number 19-070 ron ratner versus san francisco public works, street use and mapping subject property 2620 la laguna street and a personal wireless service facility site permit. construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning-protected location. this is number 17wr -- 0252. >> thank you, very much. i think this will be fine. my vision is such that i'll be able to read my paper but i mean, i would be able to read the names of the commissioners. i see that vice president lazarus isn't here.
7:57 pm
maybe we can raise her from the absence. i have her name written down in my presentation. >> you can go ahead and begin, sir. >> good evening. welcome. >> thank you, very much. commissioners honda and san francisco has thousands of microwave antennas and south hours and until now, guidelines pre-empted of all state and local u.s. heath and safety regulations. this appeal is filed on
7:58 pm
unprecedented grounds that contrary to alleged 1996 federal pre exception san francisco has retained local health and safety jurisdiction over potentially dangerous wireless inflation pursuit to its precautionary principal ordinance as well as under the recent california supreme court team oval decision which upheld san francisco's local regulation of lines or equipment on public rights of way that might cause negative health consequences or create safety concerns. it's a universal law of morality like a golden rule which pertains to every adult everywhere. if you don't harm others in ways we don't want to be harmed ourselves, we don't harm our precious planet's environment because what we do to it we do
7:59 pm
to ourselves. surprisingly, despite international recognition of the precautionary principle, the city and county of san francisco is the only world metropolis and the only large u.s. political entity which has legislated the precautionary principle as its official environmental policy. san francisco's environmental code applies to precautionary principle to all san francisco officers, boards, commission and departments including public works, health and planning departments. they're also advised to this board's consideration of environmental health and safety issues. and approving a cell tour site permitted 2620 laguna street, the article 25 city departments violated the clear language and intent of the precautionary
8:00 pm
principle ordinance in numerous respects. for example, their decision-making process for approvalling the cell tower was not made in an open and transparent manner with public participation. instead, it was decided during an 18-month private communications between city departments and verizon attorneys and engineers which completely excluded any required citizen participation or notification. before deciding to grant the permit, they failed to inform the public about potential human health and environmental dangers of the proposed cell tower. instead, they accepted biased health and safety opinions of verizon engineers and attorneys without consulting independent emf experts to evaluate dangers