like i said, a parking space isn't defined in the building code. the size of a parking space isn't defined. my personal opinion, the parking spot seems a little small, but like i said, it does meet the- >> and so if the parking spot is a little small, but it is still legally compliant i work in a building where i curse the parking lot every day because although it is legally complaint, man those spaces are awful narrow, and i understand when something can be small but yet where i work the planning department approved it and the proper approval were there even though it sucks. technical

term. but, what can be done to mitigate a situation where it is still a legal parking spot according to all compliance issues, dbi and planning, yet you say it is a little small? how do you deal with that? or give to the tenant board and let them deal with that because that isn't our jurisdiction? >> before the building code is silent on the size of the parking spot. there are many different sizes of cars that same parking spot may be very useful to another tenant, so unfortunately though the buildsing code is silent on the issue. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. we are moving to public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? raise your hand. i see the phone ending

6005, please go ahead. you have two minutes. you may need to press star 6. okay. you unmuted yourself. please go ahead. >> wnderful. hi. my name is starla miller a tenant of 155 oak street. one of very few tenants left in the building because it has been completely under construction. there's apartment which is a family with young children and then pardon me, two apartments with senior citizens so that is all that is left in the building. what i like to say in relation to the adu is my question is about doing another retrofit is that a pass-through and necessary in the city or quite devastating if we had that across the board as okay in san francisco? secondly, i wanted

to talk about the logistics of the garbage cans. sinsh we have been living in the buildsing with 12 units and doubles occupancy all the construction and plus adu, they keeping the same 3 garbage cans in a tiny room if you look at the plans which you cant turn the garbage can sideway to get to one to put garbage in it and doubling the ocpaensh in the building. i dont know what garbage collector is able to navigate that or tenant. and then, lastly, in relation to the construction overall, what we are looking at is a bigger picture. yes they are doing the adu and-sorry, what did you say? >> you have 30 seconds. >> okay. the back yard has been completely demolished. we have young children. they cannot go back there for the last 2 years. it is a

sandy demolished awful thing where we they created shade due to large walls being put up. fences and it is a steep incline, which no one can just go on. it isn't navigateable. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from caller, 5886. please go ahead. you may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> hello. >> yes. >> my name is anataseia (inaudible) member of san francisco tenant union and we believe the department was mislead regarding the alteration permit to construct 3 accessory dwelling units per ordinance number 162-6t. commissioners, you need to look in your packet at the screening form that the owner signed affidavit february 17,

2020. he was aware of the legal requirement pursuant toerant ordinance 372.r that was the reduction severage or removal of garage facilities parking driveway storage spaces from existing tenancy requires a just cause and the issuance of permit does not constitute a just cause. take a look, he checked the box indicating he would be doing mandatory seismic ret row fit which alieu him to do a temporary removal of housing services. the garage but no he put down the previous owner of number of-that retrofit work completed. ps, the demolition of the entire garage, take a look at the pictures ing your packet. it was unpermitted and the appellate parking

area was destroyed. removal and relocation of load bearing walls put in place during the seismic retrofit by the prior owner. there was no requirement or just cause for the applicant to remove the vehicles from the garage to accommodate the construction and we maintain that there needs to be a just cause for removal of- >> thank you. that is time. >> okay, thank you. we will hear from michael nulte. go ahead. >> michael nulte, executive director of tenant association coalition of san francisco. i want to ask that the please uphold the appellate or the appeal. this seems to me that the owner and the

owner's representative has tries to justify all these actions that have been made through the course of the tenancy of the tenant and there seems to be a lot of missteps made during the rehab of the building and/or modification of the buildsing and it turning into the building to be unfriendly towards tenants and i think the property owner needs to understand that he's doing an investment and that the tenants have to feel comfortable in the property as these things occur. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the call phone 9068. >> prior to speaking i'm the property manager. >> this is we are in public

comment, so i believe it is more appropriate to speak during rebuttal. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. so, is there further public comment, please raise your hand. i dont see any further public comment so we'll move to rebuttal. mr. hern you have 3 minutes. >> (inaudible) for the appellate. you know, respectfully there has been it seems a misunderstanding of the appellate argument or main argument by sfbbi and sf planning as well as the plan sponsor. really our main argument here is that as the representative from the tenants union mentioned this affidavit signed by the owner saying they were not severing or reducing housing services was out just cause is a lie and

mislead the city from the very beginning of the project. you know, there is a ordinance introduced by supervisor mendelman and became law in december that strengthen the over site of protections the tenant protections were in place since 2006, the ability to not have your services served have been right since 2006 so the eviction of the appellate vehicle or parking spaces in 2020 which continues to this day the appellate has not had the ability to use this garage facilities for two years, that was illegal before the ordinance was passed, it is still illegal and the project sponsor mislead the city from the very beginning. in order to cover up that

misstatement they then lied on the form as well iis aing that they were undergoing mandatory seismic work which would be the only reason that they would be able to sever a service without just cause. they lied on this form as well as forms that were submitted to the city, to the planning department essentially and this is required by the city to submit a picture of the notice they provided tenants notifying them about the adu work and so they again improperly cited building code 34b which relates to mandatory seismic work as basically the reason they were undergoing this project. so, our main argument is that because from a very beginning the city agencies were mislead

and the tenant had no ability to then essentially petition his rights of the tenant against the severage of housing services, we ask simply that the permit process be reset if they do contend that there is just cause to sever these services they should have to go to the rent board under the purview of the new ordinance. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder or agent for perry you have 3 minutes and don't know if you want to share your time with the property? >> there is acquisition that boarder on slander and tired of hearing it. tenant or appellate be warned. so there is no line no misdirection. the use of the adu is based on the fact that a seismic ret row fit was performed by the prior owner. the mere fact we are modifying the

structure has nothing to do with that. the old ret row fill done is ing the way for the adu. there is also claim lying reducing tenants services. only one tenant had access to marking and that is (inaudible) father. and he had two parking spaces before they were (inaudible) he will have two parking spaces afterwards. so, the claim by them this is reduction in tenant services and that (inaudible) would comply with the planning code comply with building code. we are providing two parking spaces. the fact mr.verts vertz and his daughter do not like them is irrelevant as far as board of appeals. this has to do with rent stabilization board. i yield the balance of time to david alexander the owner representative. >> thank you all. i know i-can you hear me?

>> yes, please go ahead. thank you. >> okay, thank you. there is limited time. i apologize i am on vacation with poor cell reception: there is no much to respond to on the call and apologize i wont get to all of it, but most would be something that would be heard by the rent board in regard to the parking spaces. mr. vertz is a wundserful man and he has two vintage luxury cars that were in two different spots in the garage. the garage when i first saw it was horrible. he is going to have a brand new garage which i believe is sprinklered which allow storage and yes it will be a tandem parking situation opposed to two different spots and he has a thirds vehicle he used to park in front of the second vehicle in front.

absolutely there will be some sort of a hearing at some point to discuss compensation, which he has been comp sated since he was vacated. i hope everything works out and the owners once again are empathetic and sympathetic. (inaudible) i can say that trash will be taken care of with more pickups. i dont think we need more cans i think it will be more pickups and the owners have not passed through any of the retrofits yet. i doubt they will pass through 2 ret row fits so hope there will be no increase in cost for starlet and her family. i'll close in the 4th generation san francisco native. i am looking at this as a improvement to the building and neighborhood with increases in housing which lower rent. (inaudible) >> your time is up. thank you. thank you. we'll hear from the question from

president swig. >> thank you to the last speaker. sorry mr. miller was that your name? >> david alexander. >> sorry. so, during the last two years when there has been demolition of the garage and the person to whom the person to whom the services of parking was offered had to relocate his vehicles, can you detail the compensation or allowance that you have provided that individual and then i will check and then can you justify at the same time whether the law-how the law is fallowed with regard to providing just compensation to that individual? is he

still there, mr. alexander? >> mr. alexander. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> i did. yes, i heard everything you said. so, when his parking was temporarily severed he was comp sated based on the rent board calculation for each parking spot. i dont know what it was but believe it was 50 percent which is what is required at the time for each parking spot. 15 percent of the rent times two and he is compen sated and one point it lapsed because there were delays due to hearings so he called and are said you owe me and said no problem so paid another 6 month advance and we will continue to do that until

he gets the two parking spots back. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have another question? >> no. >> thank you, we will now hear from the planning department. >> good evening again. corey (inaudible) i think we are-we have a situation here where there is three ordinances in play and i will (inaudible) don't have anyone from the rent board so challenging for me and mr. green to respond to questions that are specific to rent board determinations. but, to address issues raised, the issue of whether or not the property was undergoing seismic retrofit as part of the permit was not relevant for this permit and whether or not the permit was removing

housing services at this time for this permit was not relevant to the zoning permit being reviewed by the planning department. i understand why those issues are relevant to the (inaudible) i reinforce that it is our position and dbi position the permit is meeting the requirements of the code and the question is really just do you think the situation that have been described here and the context of this case rises to the level of being exceptional and extraordinary to the extent that you think it is warranted to acquire at least one parking space? you have the discretion to make the call. just as the planning commission had the discretion at the hearing and chose not to use the discretion and approve as proposed and you have that

same discretion before you tonight to either modify the permit or to deny the appeal and approve the permit as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. president swig, do you have is a question? >> mr. teeg, it was very clear in the rebuttal that the appellate sees that the project sponsor lied by checking a box saying that this action was related to a mandatory seismic upgrade. you said just now that it doesn't matter. how should we deal with that checking of a box? is that a lie, is it a fraudulent move or

the department issuing a permit, dbi issuing a permit, is this relevant for this permit that checking of the box? >> for the planning department purpose, (inaudible) it was not particularly relevant because of the context of the permit. other permits that box is more relevant if it is building with 4 or fewer dwelling units, so it wasn't relevant to the planning department review. i know the appellate has claimed it is more relevant to a specific building code section and provision related to parking then anything in the planning code. >> so, is that a better question for dbi? should i repeat the question for dbi? >> it is question for each of us. i can speak only to the planning code portion, i cant speak to dbi portion of it. >> i will ask dbi to

respond to the same question, is the checking of the box perceived as a law or fraudulent action and does it have merit or context in the issuance of the permit. >> he will answer your question and we'll start the time. he has 3 minutes for rebuttal. thank you. >> i have to confess i'm not a expert on the screening forms. i can do further research if you continue the case. i apologize, i guess i did misunderstand what the basis of the appeal was. i thought it was the size of the parking space. i apologize >> but in the context of any like action, when a-if this-forget this building if this another building same issue, same mouse trap, same everything, would the checking of the box be done one

way or the other be relevant to your issuance of this permit? >> it is concerning that they are saying it was undergoing mandatory story upgrade and the work had been completed 4 years prior. that should have been probably caught at the initial intake. it wasn't. like i said, i'm not a expert on the forms. i would have to ask the relevant parties what the significance is. i apologize, it is inadequate answer. don't have a better answer for you. >> you can start the time. >> one of the public comments brought up the issue of garbage collection and the solution to that is increased pickup. if the garbage isn't picked up in a timely manner and if

the garbage area isn't maintained it is violation of san francisco housing code issue notice of violation, the normal remedy to that is increased pick up time. no further comments and available for further questions. >> vice president lazarus,iovua question? >> just to follow up on president swig's question, did the checking of that box play any role in the decision regarding the permit? >> i don'ts believe so. i think this is more for buildings 4 units or less. >> right so the same answer as planning essentially. >> right. >> thank you. >> i do see the zoning administrator hand raised. i dont know if he wanted to follow up on your question? >> if it is pertinent to the question that is okay. >> mr. teeg, did you want to further elaborate on your answer? >> sure. i realize i

failed to fully answer president swig's question and then that was kind of transition into his question for mr. green. on the issue of the seismic retrofit even though it was not issue relevant to the permit, the planning code requires the seismic retrofit happen in conjunction with the adu development. that is the point. there is a nexus that while you are doing a seismic retrofit you are putting in a lot of money to make the building safer and the ability to add more adu that may otherwise be permitted is a incentive for property owners to make their buildsings more seismicly safe. i know the property owner mentioned maybe the perception is that not having to be done in conjunction with the

adu permanent and cant speak to intent in not checking the box and don't know if that is hundred percent clear on the forms but i wanted to make that clear under the planning code. >> i'm confused at something. i heard testimony i think that there is construction as part of the permit that relates to the seismic welfare of this building and that was related to the demolition of the early demolition of the garage, but in anticipation of further seismic care of this building. am i mishearing that? will there be no more seismic care done to this building? >> maybe the question

is better directed to dbi. for the purposes of the level of work required to trigger additional permission in the code you have to be do a certain level of seismic retrofitting you can't do something and call it retrofitting. there is minimum requirements. building inspection is experts on what those are so can't speak to the work done and permit on other permits that may have been somewhat seismicly related and somewhat related to the adu permit. >> i'll rephrase to dbi then, with the clearing of all the little early we recognize that and i think properly slapped the hand, is the clearing and demolition of that area in anticipation of the adu

? has there been or will there be additional seismic enhancement in the construction-the reconstruction that will create the 4adu? >> yes, structural plans clearly show (inaudible) >> so, there is in fact seismic enhancement and up grade to the building as a result of the adu? >> correct. the building just to clarify the building complies with the mandatory soft story program for 2016. they are changing the ground floor will change some of the structural elements and they are up grading it as part of this permit before you today. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. commissioners, or do you have a question vice president lazarus? >> a question for mr. teeg because he confused

me. so, you went back and talked about the nexus between seismic retrofitting and adu but thought you said that is relevant to buildings of 4 units or less? >> that is true. apologies for confusion. that is not what i'm trying to do. i just wanted to make the point of whether or not it is relevant the seismic retrofitting is happening in conjunction with the adu development or not generally since that point has been brought up and there is questions as to whether or not there was seismic retrofiting happening in conjunction or prior and done and unrelated. that was just to address the general issue but again you are correct, whether or not the adu permit has seismic retrofitting component isn't relevant inder the code because they are already permitted to

have no density cap or maximum cap ong the number of adu identify can add. >> thank you. just- >> no further testimony, sir. unless there is a question by one of the commissioners. the speaker time is up. commissioners, please have a seat, sir. sorry we cant take your testimony. commissioners, this matter is submitted. public comment passed. i called out and no one came up, so--okay. >> [speakic speaking in the background. unable to hear] >> sorry sir, public comment has passedment you can have 2 minutes. you are not mr.verts are you? >> i am. >> you are are the appellate so cannot speak during public

comment. >> (inaudible) >> sorry, you should have worked with them. your time is up. you cant speak, sir. okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. sir, sorry, at this point you need to sit. thank you. >> commissioners i was-i'm also not a expert oen theerant ordinance but the argument they are making here is that while the mandatory seismic retrofit issue departments are saying that isn't relevant to review oof the permit but the argument they are making is relevant of housing service because under the rent ordinance if the landlord is performing mandatory seismic retrofit which was the prior permit that was issued in 2015 what is required to bring the building up to code-there was a deadline all buildings had to do the mandatory work and under the

rent ordinance the landlord is able to do temporary severage of housing service in connection with those type of permits so they are saying that because of this permit was not the mandatory seismic retrofit they were not entitled to sever the garage access during the work. i dont know with whether that is true or not. i dont know the notice given but that is the argument and rel vens of the mandatory seismic retrofit. >> that a rent board issue? >> that is a rent board issue. they are able to petition the rent board for reduction in rent or compensation i think or alternate place to store the cars. i believe what they are asking for here is they want the board to restart the process so the new ordinance would govern the adjudication of this permit and provide the tenant the opportunity to submit petition to the

rent board and the planning department couldn't aprusk the permit until the rent board makes a determination as to whether or not the permit constitutes substantial reduction in housing suv services or severage. >> my response in my mind is you were laying that out is what is the cure and the cure has nothing to do with what we do here. the cure falls under the rent board and i think what the-we are now in discussion. julie are we now in discussion? >> the matter is submitted to you. >> thanks. now we can discuss. what seems to be the issue is the checking of the box and moving forward was

improper and if you believe that, and that as a result-had this a second ago. let me figure this out, folks. what seems to be here is that there was a checking of the box that under a future ordinance would have had a another-this would have been dealt with in a different way but it wasn't because this box was checked either fraudiantly or a lie, whatever you want to say and we have to decide it seems whether the action taken by the planning department was just at the time and also by the planning department and also by dbi and what would hold

would be the statutes in place at the time of that first hearing. if that hearing-if the findings of the hearing were triggered or justified by the checking of the box, then we should nullify that hearing and reset. i'm not necessarily comfortable with that unless i hear otherwise from fellow commissioners. i am not set on my beliefs here. just trying to frame it. >> i think it was made clear by both planning and dbi that the ret rofit issue was not relevant because it is building greater then 4 units so it is a mute point and i'm notd interesting nor think it it appropriate what size garage somebody should have because that takes you down a

path you are never going to return from ever. >> as dbi said, there is no standard for the size of a garage. it is ambiguous and maybe in a litter version of rules and regulations i might be clarified a bit. not under this watch it seems. >> i think the prospect most concerning to me is if the screening application lead to a decision tree that flowed a certain direction that circumvent the rent board but it sounds like we heard from a representative from planning and dbi that is not the case because of the way the building is constituted, right? so, i guess i also have maybe a point of information. do we know if

the rent board appeal review of some sort, is that off the table as of today or-? >> what i think the issue is that the process they like to apply to this permit was not in place at the time that the permit was reviewed but it is in place now if it were reviewed now. i am-again, i dont advice the rent board. i believe they can file petition for reduction in rent but don't think that is what they want. >> i follow the tact and commissioner lazarus implied and that is checking of the box didn't matter anyway. was it a lie? i dont know, but it doesn't matter because it didn't apply ing this case because the size of the building and the size

of the building as stated by dbi and planning, so it didn't matter. is this a rent board case? that's-i'm sure they can file a grievance with the rent board but how does this effect the building permit? this building permit seems in the eyes of dbi and the eyes of planning department to be suitable and correctly issued, so that is where i'm-and is there a tenant dispute in the making? oh, yeah, but that is not our issue and do we get to roll back the clock because a box was checked incorrectly or determined that box may have been checked incorrectly but wouldn't have mattered anyway because it didn't apply to the building so becomes a mute point. will not make the appellate

happy. >> i would say that i wouldn't condone them having checked the box. >> no. >> for whatever motivation. i'm also not that this is pertinent but not persuaded that based on what inspector green said that doing the work on the adu triggers additional soft story retrofitting, that is just a side bar at this point so dont think you can fall back on that. it is chicken and egg in that situation, so from my perspective we deny the appeal basis the permit was properly issued. >> is that your motion? okay. so on vice president lazarus motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> presidents swig. >> aye. >> motion carries 3-0 and appeal denied. do we need a break or continue on?

okay. >> give me till 10 minutes of the hour, please. 5 minute break. >> okay, thank you for your patience for those people here for item number 7. we will take a 5 minute break. [recess] >> regular meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we are now moving on to item number 7. appeal 22-042. galen grant versus zoning administrator. subject property is 65 oak grove street. appealing the issuance

on may 6, 2022, to galen grant, of a letter of determination (the zoning administrator determined that the legal use of 65 oak grove street is a trade shop as defined in planning code section 890.124; a trade shop was principally permitted in the m-1 and sli zoning districts and remains so within the sali zoning district today; because there is no abandonment provision in the planning code for a use that is principally permitted, the trade shop use has not been abandoned and remains the legal use; the proposal to establish an office for the district council 16 is considered a general office use, which is not permitted in the sali zoning district per planning code section 846, and therefore cannot be permitted at the subject lot unless the planning code is amended). record no. 2021-012923zad. we'll hear from the appellate first. mr. grant, welcome. you have 7 minutes and thank you for your patience tonight. >> thank you very much julie. i appreciate it. i am galen grant the president of fcga architecture, representing district council 16.

district council 16 is a labor union that represents 4 different (inaudible) it represents painters floor finisher glazers and dry wallers, and our firm does a lot of work with the trades. we built ourselves as architect of the trades and really appreciate being involved in the project. i was the one that filed the initial request for approval for the office use for this building, which is owned by our client and at that time i was-i actually created in some respect created the (inaudible) we are here to talk about tonight because i

misunderstood in detail how this building was going to be used. so, the reason that we are here tonight is to speak to the fact that this building is not inteneded to be a office building. this building is a labor union hall. this is a dispatch building for 4 of the trades. at most there will be 6 people on staff in this building at any given time. the other occupants will be premises that will be there for teaching-for mean for learning within of the 4 trades. so, on the second level where we have offices we have 5 offices 4 of

them for dispatch purposes. each one dispatching 4 of the various trades. on the ground floor, we have a tall volume which will be very suitable and will be used for on occasion for teaching purposes. there will be trucks. there will be fork lifts. there will be pellet jacks. there will be storage for large tool cases. teachs the apprentices in the various trades how to do their business within the trade. so, as part of the project, what i like to do is give you a quick tour and alec if you could pull up our

slides just so everyone understands the context of this building. this is the front the existing structure off oak grove street. there's on the left side on the e ground level you can see gates. that gate we are propozing to redo and proposing to are do the facade and update it but it will remain very much the same. next slide. you can see the windows. that is fine. you can see the windows along the side that face the freeway on the left side of the structure. next slide. better view of the windows. this is looking at the opposite side

from freeway and you can see we are up against the neighborer building. this is the back side, so on the right ground level is another overhead door which allows circulation for vehicles all the way through the structure. next slide. and that's the roof view giving you the perspective of the relationship of the building to the freeway. next slide. so, the drawing on the top shows this is for vocational training. it is also for parking at various times, and the drawing at the bottom is the second floor which shows classrooms, it identifies the 4 offices that will function as dispatch, and then the

meeting rooms which are classrooms for aprints. isthe is a training facility with offices that support that use. so, we are here tonight and jay hewitt is a agent with district council 16. we also have rudey gonzalez with building trades. they would like to have a couple offices on the second level and so both of these gentleman can speak more directly to how their business functions and i like to turn it over to them at this point. james do you want to take it from here and then hand it over to rudy? >> probably if that is fine with you. what i was going to say is we have a building down on-hold on a second. give the

address. down on 1939 market street doing this that the city is taking that building over so we want to keep a building in san francisco that enables to do the dispatching of local construction for the union glazers floor layer panter and dry wall so the main purpose of dealing with grievances and employee issue so when i read the denial of the permit because we are having a office space apparently there was a misunderstanding. it is our office, but again the purpose is for training for dispatch and putting local people to work and the 4 crafts we function. on the bottom page they were talking about one of the build-outs there was for the building trades. i believe that is why rudy is involved and interested having a office

there to handle the building trades is a union of all unions, so the carpenter when we get together and go through rudy so believe that is why he is here so this is about getting people to work (inaudible) >> thank you. there is more time in rebuttal for mr. gonzalez. we are moving ong to-we have a question from president swig. >> thank you. i think you heard me speak in the opening session and then i would have said the same in the hearing related to the tobacco license issue, and this has to do with the a question related to why did you not submit a brief for this item as it places

us at a significant disadvantage as well as places yourself at significant disadvantage because we are hear for the first time and haven't been able to do due diligence and research and proper study? why was there no brief submitted? >> mr. grant did you want to answer that? >> yes, i would. we submitted a letter on may 12 with our request for hearing, and we addressed the issues we wanted to be discussed this evening. we felt we wrote it very clearly and we assumed that would be distributed to board members. >> it was, but it doesn't qualify as a former brief. i like to ask-just i

have to service that for you because that is how we-our policy and procedure and again it gives the opportunity to give the fairest of hearings, not that you wont get a fair hearing but there is some limited ability for us to potentially become fully educated on the subjectt matter. i like to ask a question. this sounds like a school like a trade school. i understand that there's a white collar piece to it and administrative piece related to union business but the rest sounds like a trade school and i will ask planning whether a trade school like environment really applies to the zoning of this? is it a trade

school? >> sorry is that question for planning? >> is this a trade school? >> may i answer that mr. chair or president on behalf of the group? >> sure. >> san francisco building construction trade council. sadly many of the local unions no longer house training facilities along the administrative work of the local unions but we have plumber and electricians moving into a new buildsing and district council 16 who renewed their commitment, so they do plan to have both aprenths and vocational training alongside preaprints training. district council 16 loaned their skilled trained instructors to citybled academy so we have practical applications both in the soft skills for people who have barriers to entry whether because they were just

as involved or come from other disenfranchised parts thof community so they can teach practical soft skills called job readiness training programs and those are more clasroom scenario and there is practical hands on the first floor is more appropriate for, so the union includes a trade school component and i think that to follow up on mr. grants comments respectfully mr. president, i think we were thinking this was a matter of clarification and less technical argument under the sali zoning it falls in there both in the educational and social service realms i think we probably could have done a better job articulating on the front end and appreciate the zoning administrator response frankly just based on how we applied . it want we

were blowing off the brief process just a technical clarification. >> i think what we have to clarify here is the under the planning code service repair and wholesale sales and that is quhie i asked the question is this a trade school? >> exclusively sir. >> okay. and does this-how does this usage apply to service repair and/or wholesale sales? >> it applies more specifically to the 890.5 where it talks about assembly social services, vocational educational training and job training. >> none of which i'm against mind you but unfortunately what we are charged with here is maintaining the use of

buildings according to the code and even the usage you are advocating is a fine use and certainly support ive of that use and supportive of the services which unions provide, this is what we have to wrestal with. that is why i ask, is it a school and so i guess we'll let the testimony continue with the planning commission or sorry, planning department on this one. thank you. >> is it okay to respond further? i may be using union jargon of aprintsship and proivational training. they are qualified and certified as post secondary educational institutions and regulatesed through aprintsship standard through the state dir so layman term apprenticeship although paid is considered post secondary education which is further clarified by the state

through the pandemic in so far as we were low aed to be considered essential and maintain our school operations. you dont typically refer as schools per se. >> what i continue to hear is it will be a school. if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck and must be a duck. that's what i am wrestling with and why i asked the question but we'll talk about later after we hear from planning. >> thank you we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening again. corey teeg zoning administrator for planning department. i may ask the president for guidance here because the original request letter was brief and focus said on the executive offices of the union and that is really what i