mr. sanchez as to a setback that should occur. i think we should move forward approve the permit but exorcize the portion which includes closing in the space and let them come back, refile for another permit, go through the programming and really do the detail about the infill, come up with the detail about going from ground to roof with a different firewall, set back to make it legal and also within that i am sure the deck will come up because it will. that is kind of where i am going. >> i am similar. i would like to hear from permit holders. i see an architect are you for permit holder or appellant? >> permit holder's architect is not present. are you available? >> yes, we are available. >> the question is you see where the board is going with this. is your engineer or architect online or do you have the ability to answer and go forward. >> i can probably answer. is the question if i can clarify. if the question is whether we can provide further detail as to how the firewall would be erected at the property line? >> we are not

mr. sanchez went through this, it's clear. and i know commissioner swig is very clear on this point as well that a lawfully existing sign can remain to the end of the sign's normal life and then a sign however cannot be replaced. it cannot be altered. it cannot be reconstructed or relocated. and here's the language that was added by 140-06. it says clearly, a general advertising sign that has been removed shall not be reinstalled, replaced or reconstructed at the same location. and the erection, construction and/or installation of a general advertising sign at that location to replace a previously existing sign shall be a new sign in violation of section 611. so there is no doubt here that once outfront media removes its structure another one cannot be replaced. >> that hay street matter was directly on point to this matter. there really was no difference. it was ten years ago. the reason why we haven't had a matter in ten years is because it's clear what the code says. everyone has been clear. >> that's time. >> commissioner

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez from the planning department. first want to thank mr. santacana and i wish him the best of luck in his new endeavors as well. now to the matters at hand. i also concur with the permit holder's response that this does not meet the board high standards. the rehearing request arguments are incorrect and misrepresent sb35 which is meant to say all historical landmarks are for the taking. that's not true. this is only dealing with the demolition permit the board denied that jurisdiction request. i believe this is now the third hearing on this property. first, we have the jurisdiction request on the new construction permit and now the appeal of the demolition permit and now the rehearing of the demolition request. we believe the permits were properly issued and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. deputy derek duffy. welcome. >> evening commissioners. i just want to wish vice president santacan

mr. sanchez did say about taking the light well. but the light well, i think that is creating an office on one floor. you are getting a new roof. if there the other work they are willing to do and address the light well under a new permit that is the best for them, the best option. as you heards the permit holders speak there is going to be another permit required. maybe that should be to construct 1r firewall and legalize deck and go through the process with that. i am not hearing that. that might be the way to go. maybe they do that on this project. >> your comments about the details that weren't providing or missing information, should that not have been determined or observed when the permit was approved by your department? >> yes. >> i will stop there. thank you. >> commissioner chang. >> commissioner duffy, your question about the infill versus full firewall. how does that change how you would have otherwise observed this or do you just state it that you would recommend that the permit holder submit a new permit altogether in

mr. sanchez is correct or not. there seems to be work that the people want to get done.nyone has a problem with that. with the deck issue here i might be better prepared to take rebuttal on that. you wouldn't want to kill the project if this just come up an hour ago. if they can get other work done, i would be in favor with that. i just said the light wells are very difficult because, you know, this is the planning department process. i thought everybody had to get a letter from the neighbor to say it was okay. there are different interpretations. if that is the case if we did go back to say we are going through a different process from the people on the other side appealing you would wonder if it would ever get done. they may not agree to that, you know. the notification period would be opened up and might change things. i think allowing someone to work is a good idea. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment now. what did you say, president honda? >> i said thank you, deputy director. >> thank you. we are moving to public comment. i

mr. sanchez as to a setback that should occur. i think we should move forward approve the permit but exorcize the portion which includes closing in the space and let them come back, refile for another permit, go through the programming and really do the detail about the infill, come up with the detail about going from ground to roof with a different firewall, set back to make it legal and also within that i am sure the deck will come up because it will. that is kind of where i am going. >> i am similar. i would like to hear from permit holders. i see an architect are you for permit holder or appellant? >> permit holder's architect is not present. are you available? >> yes, we are available. >> the question is you see where the board is going with this. is your engineer or architect online or do you have the ability to answer and go forward. >> i can probably answer. is the question if i can clarify. if the question is whether we can provide further detail as to how the firewall would be erected at the property line? >> we are not

mr. sanchez. >> no. >> ms. lopez. >> yes. >> ms. hines-foster. >> ab. -- abstain. >> yes. >> that fails. >> commissioner: thank you, everyone. with that i'll reinstate the nomination for mr. moliga for vice president. >> mr. bos boggess -- >> no. >> ms. lam. >> yes. >> mr. sanchez. >> yes. >> ms. lopez. >> yes. >> ms. hines-foster. >> miss? >> yes. >> that's six ayes. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner moliga has been elected vice president of the sfusd for the remainder of the 2021 year. on to item 2, approval of the march 9th board meeting. >> moved. >> second. >> commissioner: thank you. are there any corrections? seeing none, roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. item 3, superintendent's report. calling on superintendent matthews. >> i appreciate the opportunity to give you my thoughts for today. good afternoon to everyone. george floyd's death at the hands of a police officer in may of last year spark our ongoing movement for racial justice. today and every day we r

mr. sanchez is absent, correct? ms. foster? >> here. >> thank you very much. >> you're off mute. >> thank you. this is commissioner molina. i'm here also. you didn't call my name. >> okay, thank you for capturing that. section b, opening item, approval of board minutes of the march 23rd regular board meeting. i need a motion and a second. commissioners, i need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> any corrections?

mr. sanchez is absent, correct? ms. foster? >> here. >> thank you very much. >> you're off mute. >> thank you. this is commissioner molina. i'm here also. you didn't call my name. >> okay, thank you for capturing that. section b, opening item, approval of board minutes of the march 23rd regular board meeting. i need a motion and a second. commissioners, i need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> any corrections? >> could you check the day of the studies resolution? i think as much as i would have liked it to be this way, i think it's not reflected correctly in the minutes. i think we agreed on 2028 rather than 2027. is that right? >> yeah, we did vote on it. >> right, but i think -- i think it's incorrect in the minutes. >> so in the minutes, i think it states from 2028 to 2027, is that not correct? >> that was the amendment that i proposed, but the amendment failed. so i think what we agreed to was 2028. >> oh. okay. >> am i right about that, commissioners? >> yes. >> yes, you're right. >> okay. that will be corr

mr. sanchez is absent, correct? ms. foster?ou. this is commissioner molina. i'm here also. you didn't call my name. >> okay, thank you for capturing that. section b, opening item, approval of board minutes of the march 23rd regular board meeting. i need a motion and a second.