Unions over the past decade. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. No other speakers. Public comment is now closed. Chair . Supervisor walton any more comments from colleagues . Supervisor fewer i think we learned a lot today. I want to thank colleagues for holding this hearing. I think public speakers bring up good points about the overhanging of wires and i look forward to calling for an additional hearing about the study, but actually i think there are still some open issues about what is on those poles. And now i am being alerted that the pole heights have been extended, which is something i didnt know about. So, chair, im respectfully asking to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. The motion has been heard. Let me check in. I want to briefly say i appreciate all the folks that came out today. I know that theres a lot of people that have been pushing this conversation. Its interesting when you leave San Francisco and you look at other areas all around its not as i want to use the word polluted the wires everywhere in our city. The argument about not being able to do it, transmission lines, these are factual in some ways, but in other ways you can argue theyre not. If you go around the bay area you dont see the same level of congestion and wires and other localities. The other frustration i have for our part of town is we essentially have no undergrounding. So same in the richmond. So theres just not much as all or any in our part of town. Then when you do, people will get messages or get a letter from a utility saying if youd like to do this, you can pay 30,000 or 15,000 to have this done on your street. Each individual household our part of town are working families, they dont have that money. I know in the past 170 million was spent to do this. It was through a grant process. The communities organized were able to get it done, but it was not in the southern parts of the city or the southwestern part of the city. So we want to do this. I think its important. I think that scientific studies have shown that Energy Efficiency is increased when you put it underground. Safety is increased when you put it underground. Overall, quality of life is enjoyed when its put underground. So i think theres some good points made today. I think we should further in conversation and bring folks back, but i want to voice that today supervisor fewer i think its exploring our jurisdiction of the lines, not so much the poles, but the lines also. Supervisor walton i think its interesting that cpuc hasnt conducted a study of whether or not underground is safer. But yet we have new developments that are required to use underground utilities. Its interesting and we will have further conversations of course to understand how that could be the case in this point. To your point, supervisor, i want to thank you and supervisor stefani for calling this hearing today. This is happening in other cities. Its definitely happening on new developments right here in San Francisco. So were going to continue to work hard to make this a reality, and you have a commitment from us to do that, which is why were here having this hearing today. With that said, theres been a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. I dont think we have any objecti objection. Without seeing any objection, well move this item to continue to the call of the chair and we seal take this with no objection. With that said, clerk, is there anything else that we have . Clerk theres no further business. Supervisor walton seeing as theres no further business, this hearing and this meeting is adjourned. [adjournment] clerk good evening and welcome to the july 31, 2019 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals. President rick swig will be the president tonight. To my left is deputy City Attorney brad russey who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. At the controls is the boards legal assistant, and i am the boards department. Up front is scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the Planning Department and planning commission, and we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the Building Department. The board requests that you turnoff all phones and Electronic Devices so they will not interrupt the proceedings. Please carrie on all secondary conversations in the hallway. Each party is given seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. Parties not associated with the case have three minutes and no rebuttal. Four votes are require to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. If you have questions about the rules, please speak to staff after the meeting or visit the office. We are located at 1650 mission street, room 304. This meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4 00 p. M. On fridays on cable channel 76. Now, we will swear in or affirm any members that wish to testify. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to have the board give your item evidentiary weight, you must swear or affirm. Is there anybody here for general Public Comment . Youre not here for an item on the calendar . Okay. Please approach. Thank you. Good evening and welcome back. Thank you. I had a fruitful discussion with dr. Tomas argon. Hes constrained by the limits on his time since hes assessing the negative Health Effects of juuls ecigarettes. I am suggesting a timeline, perhaps a month or so, so this keeps moving forward. As an aside, Bloomberg News reported there were Health Concerns regarding 5g. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Is there anyone else here for general Public Comment, please approach the microphone. Good evening, as well. Good evening. Hello, Board Members and president swig. My name is michael levesque. At the board of appeals for cheryl hogan, a matter was denied for appeal. President swig had received a large number of recent studied about the impact of e. M. F. R. F. Radiation, wireless antennas and sent them on to the department of public health. He did so because the board of appeals is limited in the scope of determination and nine years have passed. President swig cannot receive the response at the july 17 hearing, and this information appears perhaps to me as new evidence that warranted a postponement awaiting the response by the department of public health. The postponement would recognize the seriousness of the issues facing the members of the board of appeals, also would not unduly delay its determination. How serious is the issue . It has great impacts on the life of cheryl hogan who suffers from electric sensitivity, legally recognized by the federal government. This now affects one out of ten years and individually manifests itself in our genetic make up. With the wireless antenna, it will affect cheryl hogan so bad she will not be able to live at her home. This puts everyone at risk. Pg e had a legal battle when she deployed the smart they deployed the smart meters, and it was later found that they permitted an opting out for the electronically sensitive, so legal relief exists for such individuals. In hawaii, a much more aggressive approach resulted in only an opting in by the provider and several resignations. A cellular antenna placed in front of cheryl hogans home could be placed in another area to protect her health. My question is is it possible for the board to reconsider their determination on behalf of cheryl hogan, and thank you. Clerk thank you. Thank you. Clerk is there anyone else here for general Public Comment . Okay. So we will move on to item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions . Vice president swig commissioners, comments and questions . Commissioner honda i would like to welcome our shining new commissioner, eduardo, from harvard. Welcome. Vice president swig okay. Id like to welcome eduardo, as well, and i think indicative of our enthusiasm having you filling out our panel is you have a brand spanking new name plate when only yesterday the board of supervisors finally approved you, which shows the excitement and enthusiasm of our executive credit. Clerk all credit goes to gary quintara. Thats made out of paper. The official one will be here as soon as possible. Vice president swig wow, gary. Were excited to have you aboard. Second of all, and this is not in response to the Public Comment that we had a moment ago. I was going to make this comment. It follows up on the request of our last session to our executive director, requesting that we get some feedback from the department of health as to if and when they will respond to an update on this request of their 2010 opinion of the technology. Clerk yeah. They have not provided me with a definitive date yet, and i will work on getting a firm date this week. Vice president swig yeah. Would you, as a matter of public record, tell them that another formal request was made in public . Clerk yes. Vice president swig yes. Just yes, no, or when, please. Clerk okay. Any other commissioner comments and questions . Is there any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, well move on to the adoption of the minutes. Before you for possible adoption are the minutes of the july 17 board meeting. Vice president swig commissioners, a motion . Clerk okay. We have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt those minutes. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . Okay. Seeing none, on that motion [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 50. Were now moving on to item four, this is a jurisdiction request at 610 clipper street. Dave cunningham, the requester is requesting that the board take jurisdiction on a permit which was issued on november 6, 2018 by the department of building inspection. The permit holder 610 clipper, l. L. C. , the project description is the addition of six new dwelling units to be built within the envelope. Commissioner honda and upon advice from my City Attorney, i will disclose that the appellant works for the same Real Estate Brokerage that i do. We have not had any transactions nor do we have any ever. Clerk thank you. Okay, mr. Cunningham, you have three minutes. Can i give you a map before we start . Clerk you can put it on the overhead before we start. Okay. Good evening. My name is dave cunningham, and thank you for taking the time for my jurisdiction request. I was encouraged by the written response to my jurisdiction request from veritas attorney which says they have no intention of taking away my parking and storage in violation of rent control laws. However my worries remain. The plans show all garages behind 610 clipper and all of the open parking at 410 douglas being turned into a. D. U. Units. Ive drawn a rough map for you to show you my parking and storage location and the planned veritas a. D. U. Locations in my building. On june 17, i sent veritas a request to provide the plans at this hearing. Hopefully, they have the plans in question with them this evening. It is my understanding that this board of appeals has notified the board of supervisors about your concerns regarding the no notification on a. D. U. S which are in the envelope of the building. I left a message for my district eight supervisor, Raphael Mandelman on june 19. The rent board cannot stop veritas from taking my parking and storage, only help me with a rent reduction after the fact. Because the board of supervisors have not acted on this yet, i am asking you, the board of appeals to grant my appeal so the plans can be redrawn to show the retention of my parking and storage which is what veritas Attorney Says is their intent. I cannot take veritas work for it because their plans show the opposite of what they say they will do. I need to see new plans that show my parking and storage intact and you, the board of appeals are my only hope in getting that accomplished. Thank you. Actually, i didnt know reuben and junius were making a presentation. I need to disclose that my company has hired reuben and junius on numerous occasions. Clerk okay. Thank you. We will now here from mr. Kevin. This might sound familiar. We were here i think two or three months ago on 1064 delores. Little confused about this request. There doesnt seem to be anything in dispute. The rent board has very clear guidance on its website that parking along with storage and other amenities to rent control units are subject to the same control as the unit themselves. Theres no intent of forcing or involuntarily removing the appellants parking so there doesnt seem to be anything in dispute here. Ill leave it to the board to ask questions if you do have them. Because this does seem a little odd, two requests for jurisdictions filed. Im just going to mention mr. Cunningham is on the complaint as one of the parties. Also mention the appellant at the 1064 jurisdiction request two or three months ago. John kessler is also on the complaint as well as the gentleman that spoke in his favor at that hearing, so theres nothing i can do to stop this from happening. In fact theres nothing the board can do to stop future jurisdiction requests to be filed. I just thought id put that out there to connect the dots, but im more than happy to discuss five a. D. U. S, but thats where we are right now. And where is the project in terms of actually constructing the a. D. U. S or where are we on that . Seismic reviews are being done in september. The site permit was issued last november. As of right now, theres no immediate or even midterm plans too construct to construct or build it out yet because there are several spaces that are encumbered, so assuming that doesnt get solved in a way that benefits everyone, veritas might come back, but right now, its okay for everyone. Understanding that your client has to abide by the current tenant rights and not take amenities away, so how did they get a permit to build a unit that they dont have anything listed yet . Ill let mr. Sanchez fill in the details as necessary. There was a lot of enthusiasm about it. A number of building owners went out and got permits for parking, storage, etc. , and with the a. D. U. Program, you can get a site permit and you dont have to File Construction drawings, and its a relatively simple process. Its only in recent years that you have to start working with the tenants, working to fix out these conflicts are going to be resolved. I think its a year ago, two years ago that the department implemented a policy that the a. D. U. Builders have to provide notice of the rights of the a. D. U. Tenant pursuant to law. Its the risk to protections that dont allow you to actually build it out. But just simple math, you were here just recently, and veritas is the largest business landlord in San Francisco. It would be good faith to deal with the tenants prior to showing up that there was a permit being done. This permits been on file for a number of years and just got issued in november. So while veritas and some of the other larger landlords in the city, the practicality has been shifting, so what youre seeing today has been in the works for a number of years. For veritas own purposes, they are continuing to update their processes with their tenants. And then last question, counselor. How many a. D. U. S are in the works for veritas currently . Were actually working with some very enthusiasm party enthusiastic parties in city government, and weve got some 200 . 500 . I dont have a number, but were talking in the hundreds. Thank you. Yeah, so thank you. A question thats going to lead to a question for the City Attorney later. So weve had a series of, like, issues some nothing to do with veritas and some having to do with veritas. In some, there was a lack of transparency, either intended or unintended where because the law did not require that plans werent that tenants werent disclosed of the plans, the plans werent offered to the tenants, and and as a result, we made a request to the board of supervisors to make some requests to cure that in their legislation which i believe was passed about a month and a half ago. My question is was veritas proactive in informing the tenants in this building that this was underway and was there any proactive attempt to inform the tenants that these plans were moving forward and was there any proactive attempt to show the tenants any plans to relieve Anxiety Stress questions or the general apprehension that tenants have when they ultimately found out . Im not aware of any situations in the a. D. U. Program. I will say the submittal that the appellant made showed a good intent. Despite the fact that theres just me here, theres others watching about this hearing. I went back and told them about your comments, and theyre watching this, so your comments are welcome in terms of moving forward. Thank you. Im going to follow up with a question for the City Attorney later on. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Good afternoon, president swig, members of the board. Welcome, commissioner, to the board. I hope you enjoy coming to these hearings as much as we do. The permit that a jurisdiction request is being sought for is to add six a. D. U. S to the subject property. The planning code does not currently require neighborhood notice for the additional a. D. U. S. We did Institute Late last summer more of a courtesy requirement that they provide some notice to the tenants of the building when therell be a reduction of services. This change occurred after approval by our department, so it was not subject to that additional step. Some other facts to consider if they are helpful enough for the board. Parking is no longer required under the planning code, so the Parking Spaces that are not actually, at the time the permit was issued, they would have been required Parking Spaces but no longer because of recent legislation that was effective at the beginning of this year. Also, theres a new process for kind of an expedited appeal process for a. D. U. S, and my understanding of the approval process for this is it would not be subject to that stream lined appeal process. I think its also based on the issuance date of the permit, but the type of permit that is here is not one that would r