on 232, on 301, on the appellate body. and it was clear that they were trying to position themselves as the defender of the international trading system. to me that was ludicrous. and that's why i made the statement. i got many remarks from people who were at geneva thanking me for making that statement and saying it was on point. then we used the following general council meeting in july to put china on the agenda and then to highlight how their economic model is incompatible with wto norms. i think it's available publicly, but i urge you to read it. it's very straightforward, eight pages. it ends in a very -- it ends if china does not change its course, the implications for this organization are decidedly negative. so for me trying to deal with the nonmarket economy of china is the most important issue of wto reform. and probably the toughest. >> okay. the one next to jim berger. >> thank you. evan wallich from the court of appeals for the federal circuit. >> hi, evan. >> i'd like you to comment on whether a member state

the appellants say this is the curious thing. the appellants say due to their own building, force modifications to our proposed project, versus recognizing their building is the anomaly. this front absolutely -- this runs contrary to the base extenants of the planning code which is to encourage conformity. their request that we should shorten the building by 15 feet would result in the loss of minimally three bedrooms. two on the lower unit and one on the upper unit. and we don't believe that this is a reasonable ask to accommodate their nonconforming building. here is the site diagram and so interesting that they have used a different diagram about how one accommodate ascotage. this is the diagram here specifically in the residential design guidelines that show when one building a building next to a cottage, that ask for a setback on the side. our building is exactly follows that diagram if you can see here. we are setback 4 feet from the south property line and we have not blocked any of the nonconforming windows. many of the -

the appellants will describe the grounds for their appeal. two minutes for public commenters to speak. these are commenters that are speaking in support of the appeal, and then, we will have a ten-minute presentation for justin horner from the planning department to present his analysis of the -- certified e feir, and then, there will be a ten minute presentation from the sponsor, and another two minutes for public commenters to speak that are in support of the affirmation of the environmental impact report, and then finally, the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument. and i think colleagues, without objection, we can get started. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the public hearing is now open. i'd like to take a couple minutes to give a few opening remarks. i've had an opportunity to meet with both the project sponsor and the appellant involved in the appeal. just for reference, this is a mixed-use development comprised of three existing industrial buildings which will be turned into approximately 10,000 square feet of

both the public, the appellants and the board. i would ask you to continue the decision on this anc, seven a, and see into a new hearing. you can't -- you have to hear me -- me. it is what they did to initially remove the unit and put it in that place for the developed -- for the developer. that is a violation of the planning code and the billing code. is a violation of humanity for loss of housing. so i would ask you to stop, take the testimony. i don't even understand what the time limit is anymore. i asked ms. miss rosenberg yesterday and we refreshed our memory about the amount of time that would be allowed for speaking for the project, for the developer to speak and for rebuttal. is that all washed away? we now have a seven unit presentation and one month minute of rebuttal. explain away what is happening here. because i don't think you should be making a decision this way so fast. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> can you explain a little bit about the process? i understand that these permits h

there are no projects specific issues identified by the appellate. the project does not cause any peculiar ceqa impacts. the appeal should be denied. ths appeal arguments from past appeals in easter neighborhoods. these arguments have been raised by opponent of market rate, mixed income and 100% affordable housing project. they are not new to this board. three recent examples provide direct precedent to deny this appeal. in february of 2017 this board did not grant an appeal. a project appellate claimed easter neighborhood eir of fail and failed to address issues such as transportation, land use, growth, significant finding and impacts. those are similar to the claims raised today. this board rejected each of those grounds unanimously. more recently in october of last year, in save the hill versus city and county of san francisco, the san francisco superior court rejected a ceqa lawsuit filed by opponents of a 395-unit project at the base of the hill. relevant to this project, the court explained that a plan level eir does not have an expiration date

recording -- regarding affordable housing the appellant identifies a policy 2.1. e policy called for additional on site affordability above then existing requirements in the northeast mission industrial zone. the eastern neighbourhoods rezoning of 2,080 did exactly. it created a zoning district which also included patent on site affordability requirements, codifying policy through planning code for 19.3. the project meets this policy. the 20% affordability comfortably exceeds the 16% zoning requirement for the property. at it also exceeds 17.5%. in total, this project furthers a significant number of policies and goals relating to housing production including general plan policies 1.1, 1.10, 4.1 and 4.4. and mapp 2020 categories for, objective three and solution one h. this project is not required by code to provide any p.d.r. yet it provides p.d.r. replacement instead of ground floor retail and retains the existing mission base p.d.r. business in a brand-new space and pays for temporary relocation while the building is being constructed. this makes -- this means a

the appellant's right to appeal has been preserved. the error on the commission notice did not render the categoric aleal exemption inadequate. for the reasons stated in our appeal response and active hearing, the appellant has not provided evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant other. i request that you up hold the department's seek request determination and deny the appeal. as i side note, should the board return the project back to the department to renotice the h.p.c. hearing with the correction approval action as the recreation and parks commission, it would still not render the categoric exemption inadequate. the timeliness of the appeal is unrelated to the exemption issued for the project. this concludes my presentation. and planning staff are available for any questions that you may have. thank you. >> president cohen: any questions? thank you for your presentation. next up we'll have the real party and interest to present their project. the recreation and park department for up to 10 minutes. >> good a

>> i can't answer for the appellant but the maintenance logs are typically done by a vendor that they are paying for. >> but there is two different logs that are required or only one is required? >> it says it should be ph chlorine and test -- temperatures to be tested daily. >> thank you. >> i would also like to note that every time i test outside state law, there is a minor suspension. so they have been suspended four time so far 41-3 days, typically >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners pack this matter is submitted. >> would like to start? >> i will start. since this is the first time that a full -- pool suspension has come before us, in the previous case i did appreciate that the department is working with the small businesses and making the punishment appropriate to the crime. i am supportive of some type of suspension. i am not supportive of 30 days. i think a week is in line with what i feel. at that point, a serious message is being sensed that the next time will be much longer. >> i would agree that 30 days is a long time. it seems a 1-3 days was mentioned and have been

i am the city appellant. commissioners, as you know, is a case about the number of dwelling units in my client's home. any legal unit was erroneously counted on a old c.f.c. as a lawful unit and my client was directed by d.b.i. to apply for a permit to correct the c.f.c.'s error. we are requesting a rehearing tonight because we decided this case 3-1 on grounds that had already been decided in a formal preapplication decision. under ab 28 kathy's decisions are binding and they are only appealable to the building inspection commission and not support of appeals. to exceed this jurisdiction is manifest and just. overhead, please. good evening, commissioners. >> overhead, please. >> good evening commissioners. the subject property is my home which i have lived in for 11 years. which i have owned for 11 years. i have been trying to follow the processes to make my home safe but the city keeps folk pulling the rug from underneath me. when i discovered my home had a unit count problem i was told to get an official uni

ing. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the appellant, mr. lanzi. >> overhead, please. >> thank you, commissioners. this is what the trees looked like after they were illegally topped. as we discussed at the last meeting. this was not an unintentional act. there is no way someone could do this to the tree. there is no way that is the out come anyone who cares about trees would result in. the other thing, i totally agree this is not an ideal place for a tree to be planted. over 67% of the trees have been removed there. aren't ideal places to plant. when the development was built it was built to specifications of 1978 which allowed the trees. they are no longer suitable. we can't say the neighborhood should not have trees left because of the rules that now exist. as i asked the commission last time, i repeat the request that the condition be added to the permit, that replacement trees of suitable nature be planted at the same location. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i had a question for

the f.c.c. standards. you know, appellant raised a litany of other issues that are really outside the purview of board, including -- of this board, including mobility provides the city -- perother city regulations, and we carry an insurance policy perour master license agreement that covers property damage should any of that occur at any point. so in short, this permit was properly issued, it was reviewed by all -- all relevant city departments. they found we are in substantial compliance with city policy, so mobility respectfully requests you deny this appeal and allow the project to proceed as originally permitted. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, sir. so how many permits has sprint taken out for this type of application? >> i can't speak for sprint in general because they use other companies like mobility for these deployments. mobility has, at this point, i believe, received perhaps a dozen permits, but -- and we have more applications in, and hopefully more permit approvals to come. >> commissioner honda: so how

we'll hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> all right. thank you folks see that? i can't see it on the screen. >>clerk: overhead. thank you. >> i'm really surprised at the misinformation that we got from the three other agencies tonight. i'm disappointed by it. i expected more honest answers for you and complete answers. you were told a number of things that were just flat out incorrect or they didn't have the information for you. both organizations didn't know that the pole was taller. it's 2'3" taller. you can see that. the planning has told you how big the equipment is. there were 34 sites on the homt and edison mobility list for sprint. i have it, and got it through discovery, as well. it was just information through information here. this notion that these are one-inch different in size, i have the dimensions here. i hope you can see them. i'll read them out to you. the box on the lower left, 15.5 inches wide, the at&t mobility box, 8 inches wide. the box on the lower left is the -- i'm sorry, the box on the left is the sprint box. it is 11 inches deep. the bo

and if so, therefore, has standing, contrary to what the appellant's brief has indicated? it's my opinion that the current property owner has standing to deal with this. that variance portion, that one condition, applies to their property. it's the only portion that applies to their property. if that's the case, and the current owner has standing, then, what we're faced with is the second question, is has the zoning administrator, in his approval of the five findings and criteria, was he accurate in doing so? the appellant's brief raises a couple of things, and most of it concentrates on the other question mostly of standing. in my opinion, the zoning administrator did not err, and therefore, the findings are correct. >> commissioner honda: i will concur. being on this board for the last six years, we've had many permits appealed properties that had n.s.r.'s the fault lies on t that he sold that property, and that, you know, he got his building to go noncode compliant on the basis of having that open space and then sold the open space. so i'm in concurrence with my presiden

in this case, the general plan element here, did call for heightened affordability as the appellant's attorney noted, that was implemented through planning code section 419. they are in compliance with the policies of the missionary plan because they are in compliance and art exceeding the requirements of section 419. generally we had affordability requirements of 12% back in the day. it has increased but under 419, it was a 16% based. it was a higher level. there are three different tears. tier a is properties that had little or no change in their development potential in terms of height. b. is more moderate increase that was allowed by the rezoning and see is even more. this was tier b. and it's rate his for 19. we have had props proxy and increases in improvements to affordability requirements. under the grand father learning -- under the grandfather rules, it stepped up to 17 and a half%. that would be the base code requirement in compliance with the general plan for the property as noted by the project sponsor's attorney. they have increased it voluntarily to 20%. it is an additi

that's depicted here. 3030 larkin, the appellant's property is now over here. subsequent lot adjustment created a new lot, lot 22, and that created our new parcel, 24, which is the subject site. to address mr. williams' concern, the variance was on all of this property. we now own this, so we have standing. i don't know how that's hard to understand. because of all these reassignments, the records were muddled to say the least. before preparing plans, the architect and i went and searched at every building permit on the hu's property. we looked at every building plan and researched the entire city history. the simple fact is that neither the hu's, the architects nor variance city employees saw the recorded restriction. at that point, the hu's acted in good faith and notified the planning department that there was a discrepancy. here's the p.i.m. map and project planning application that i printed out yesterday. we sought this variance to modify that old condition of approval. had we known about the n.s.r. back in 2014, we still would have pursue this had change.

he waived the appellate procedure to address his sentences. he had no right to any appellate procedure to address his sentences. had his attorney filed a notice of appeal and raised the issues mr. garza wanted, a challenge to his sentence, the only thing he would have gotten is a preliminary proceeding to determine whether he was asserting a waived procedure. >> could you address flores-ortega? because the way it approached the issue was pretty clear. it said in deciding whether counsel was ineffective, first you determine whether the defendant would have appealed. there are two ways to make that determination. a, was there a plea waiver? if yes, he wouldn't have appealed. and second, did he tell the attorney he wanted to appeal? and this is the second of those. but i can't square your position with flores-ortega, because flores-ortega seemed to accept, as a working proposition, that given that there is even any guilty plea, there are waivers of some issues and not others, that the question of whether a defendant would have appealed takes into

i do hear from the appellants that there is a current exit passage way. like i say, in this information sheet, because there's the building, because it's only a 2r existing or a new building. i think they're ok with the exiting that is currently planned for the project. i'm not really anything else. i would want to make a comment as well about the drawings. it did show there was a lot of that building being demolished and we will agree, i want to shout out a warning here, do not exceed the scope of demolition. because that's going to just bring that whole project back again. so that's something that if you get your permits, do not exceed the scope of demolition. that's because it's just going to be a problem. other than that, i don't think i have anything else that i want to say. i mean, i would be available for any questions. >> are there any notice of violations on any of the properties at this point? >> good question. the only notice of violation that we have -- well, the only complaint we have on 891 carolina street is a vacant building. i didn't check

we will hear from the appellants you have three minutes. >> thank you. i own 44 and 42 lippard avenue. i am the guy who just lost my eye on july 1st. i had it removed and i am dealing with that on a personal basis. i am just going to speak from the heart. marched over to, 1982, i moved to san francisco and i left san francisco. i'm so proud to be here and have been here for 35 years. when bill and i met at an hiv-positive meeting and we decided to buy a house together because we lived in the same apartment building for 17 years, we got together and we found this beautiful property in glen park. it was a magic moment. is one of my proud moments in my life. i am a hard worker. we are working smiles and we work every day and we got to own property in san francisco. the first thing we saw was that tree. we love that tree. it has been a great tree and we have spent thousands of dollars to maintain that tree. i got to tell you, i can't walk past -- their cottages in front in mind is in the back and i am having trouble. i'm seriously having trouble. i have one i

we have so minutes for the appellant, who is mr. mark bruno and save north beach. are you here today? great. and sir, you will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds of the appeal. there are two minutes for public comment to speak in support of the appeal. then, there is up to 10 minutes from the planning department to present its analysis foray firming the cat x up to 10 minutes for real property in interest to present their project and that is the rec and park. rec and park, where are you? i don't see you. thank you. up to two minutes for public commenters to speak when they are in support of the affirmation. the appellant will have three minutes for rebuttle in their argument and colleagues without objection, this hearing is open. mr. bruno -- i'd like to call up the appellant, mark bruno and save north beach to describe to us the grounds of their appeal. >> my name is mark bruno and i am the appellant in this matter. as many of you have seen before, i will place it here but you will see more details about this notice of public hearing. we see them all the time

so this particular site as was pointed out by the appellant in different photographs has a different -- a type of equipment. they showed another carrier that had maybe two pieces of equipment on the pole. this particular carrier chooses to shroud theirs into one particular component. overall, we've seen that this particular equipment is about 1 inch larger than kind of the other carriers on average. so we feel that's pretty minimal as far as comparison, and as a perception, we feel that's deminimous. so overall, we feel the pole itself is pretty distinct from the residential feelings. it's close to 14 feet, 15 feet from the actual building itself. so if something is done about the six to 8 foot distance from the building, residential windows, we do tart sto look at those dimensions. they are -- we do start to look at those dimensions. this far exceeding that distance, we determined that the equipment would not significantly detract. in addition, in looking at the actual plans, the placement of the equipment on the pole is actually kind of directly in between the two floors, so it's ki

barnes, the person who makes the decision on the issues to be raised is the appellate attorney. it would be illogical to say a defendant's right to appeal as the united states argument argued here turns on his ability to articulate certain issues. remember, your honor, we're talking about the notice of appeal stage here. the record typically hasn't been reported here, wouldn't have been ordered in idaho because that's triggered by notice of appeal. you're asking a generally a defendant with limited education, exposure to the legal system may be minutes, maybe hours, to potentially specify certain issues that may be in or outside the waiver and then asking his agent to basically play judge and forfeit his appeal if he alone thinks that the words that came out of the defendant's mouth happen to fall within the waiver. >> i think the argument does ultimately depend on the proposition that the defendant has this cat gorical right based on autonomy to insist on an appeal and have an attorney perfect the appeal. file the notice of appeal. even if there is zero chance that the appeal wi

we will hear from the appellants you have three minutes. >> if there isn't affordable housing, there on't be any students to take advantage of this program. i wanted to read a quote from commissioner hillis. at the january 25th hearing, he said that people need to come to the community and they rely on the community to negotiate with developers and come with projects that they think work, have higher levels of affordability and have ground-floor space that is not a gentrifying factor. we make these kinds of agreements all the time and we work with a lot of great developers that work with us to make better projects. and i would have to say that we know that the history of rubicon point partners is to convert industrial space into creative office space to gentrify spaces. that is one of the reasons that we are asking that if something happens to the fitzgerald family , they don't come back and they can't meet the terms of their lease, that we have a community agreement as a backup to make sure that that space does not get gentrified. we are not asking anymore. we are asking just to meet

the rules of presentation as as follows. appellant, and respondents are given 7 minutes for the case and 3 minutes for the rebuttal. people affiliated must include the comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board and no eare buttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate presentation, you are asked to submit but not required to submit a speaker card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about questioning a rehearing or rules, please speak to a staff member during the break, after the meeting, or call or visit at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak