Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20240713 : vimarsana.

Executive director. We will be joined by the representatives from the City Department with cases before the board. In front is Scott Sanchez representing the Planning Commission. We have joseph duffy, representing the department of building inspection. And we expect nicholas with the Public Works Bureau of street use and mapping and chris, urban forester with the bureau of urban forestry. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. The rules of presentation, appellants are given 7 minutes to present the case. People affiliated with the parties must give their comments within the 3 and 7minute period. Members not affiliated have up to three minutes to address the board. For rehearing request, the parties get three minutes each with no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, youre asked to submit a speaker card. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. Four votes are necessary to grant an appeal. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. Were this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv and will be broadcast on fridays at 4 00 p. M. The video is available on the website and can be downloaded. Now well swear and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish the to have the board give your testimony weight, please say i do after youve been sworn or affirmed. You do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Please be seated. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter that is not on tonights calendar. We have a speaker. Hi, im georgia. On june 15, 2019, the board considered two appeals from immediately adjacent neighbors for an alteration project at 463 duncan street. The alteration permit included expansion into the rear yard and 11feet deep full lot. The project was approved at the Planning Commission on december 26, 2018, in part because its a second unit, despite the issue raised by one of the requesters as to the viability and livability of this second subterranean unit. After, when the plans were granted to dbi for further review, it was discovered that second subterranean unit did not comply with the Building Code. There was no legal egress for the sleeping rooms. Two of the three bedrooms were relabelled as nonsleeping rooms making a onebedroom unit with three dens at the new address of 461 duncan. After the testimony at the boards june 15, 2019 hearing, the board voted 50 that this subterranean unit at 461 duncan must include a minimum of two bedrooms. During the june hearing, the staff discussed either passageway or a reconfiguration to create legal bedrooms in that subterranean unit. During deliberation, president swig initiated discussion of a continuance so the board could review the decision, but the consensus was this would delay the project. Heres the revision. May have the overhead . So this is the subterranean unit. And heres the bedroom. And heres the bedroom. And thats the office. This is the other bedrooms are over there. What they did, they put ladders in the light wells. So two metal ladders have been added to the light well. One is eight feet and leads to the narrow roof which leads to the first level deck outside the master bedroom of the upper unit. The second 10foot ladder leads to a landing outside of another bedroom window. The special conditions permit was issued this week, monday, january 6, seven months after the hearing. Because the project is two units, the revision was not reviewed by the Fire Department sector [bell ringing] and there are apparently no sprinkler requirements. These ladders are a poor solution. It would have been good for the board to weigh in on the revision, just as it would have been good if the Planning Commission had been aware of the egress issue when the project was before them. Just so you can see, this is the project sponsors rendering. Heres the roof. There is the window. There is the light well. They come [bell ringing] and thank you. Thank you. We need to keep the doorway clear. There are seats in front here. Or if you can line up on the other side. We have an overflow room in room 421. Any other general Public Comment this evening . Okay. Yes . Ive lived near 24th street maam, youll have an opportunity for comments on 24th street. This is general, for items not on the agenda. Seeing none, we move on to item number 2. First of all, happy new year. Congratulations to the mayor on her swearing in as well as a going friend paul as sheriff. I also wanted to raise commissioners that dr. Sent a reply email regarding the please updated memo and the Health Effect of wireless permits. Just for the record, this is not on the agenda, but i wanted to convey this information to you that theyre still working he said theyre still working on the report and in addition to reviewing the literature, he was given a large volume of documents from concerned persons. Its taking longer than anticipated. He needed peer review from the California Department of Public Health. My response to that is we, at least from my point of view and i dont know if we need to agendaize this, but we appreciate his response and we look forward to the fulfillment of our request for an updated document of the 2010 report from San Francisco Public Health on the impact of all the Telecommunications Equipment that is floating around our world. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments . Any Public Comment on the item . Seeing none. Move on. Okay. Sorry. Good evening. Welcome back. Dear doctor, this weather confirms our telephone conversation regarding at t. I called in pain with my 5g induced pain. The sudden realization that six months had passed for the board of health to assess the safety of 5g further increased by feelings of desperation. It became clearer that you are dawdling when you wanted to take 5g measurements in my house and neighborhood with a meter that cannot measure 5g. I have learned that 5g is intermittent and a probe meter only measures the average, not the highest output. The probe will arrive months from now and serve no purpose. I informed you that an antenna replaced by 5g will further saturate the city with this harmful frequency. I stated you had enough information and the symptoms that are currently being reported, most alarmingly regarding children with nose and ear bleeds, migraines and insomnia. It was a doctor and director from the Health Department. Youre here to protect the public from an emerging Public Health emergency. You expressed a concern stating that 5g was a Health Hazard with any modifications. I responded that president swig did in fact task you as a licensed m. D. Employed by the San Francisco Health Department to make those kinds of decisions if appropriate. The legality of restricting our modifying 5g should be determined by the city attorney. But is not within your scope of practice. I still believe you have integrity to do what is right for the people of San Francisco, but you must not prolong your decision. I now have an ongoing migraine, december 26. Two days after the last one. Life with my symptoms is not sustainable. Im a recent Breast Cancer survive. To the present, i had a migraine yesterday and the day before. The ringing was so loud i could barely hear. It was bad enough i had a fantasy of wanting to be put on an iceberg and float away. And 5g is just the tip of the iceberg. I informed a past client who wanted to resume therapy that she should begin shortly because i do not know how long i will be continuing my practice. Folks, are you hear for the 24th street item . Because we have an overflow room, number 421. If you could move to that area, we have a couple of open seats. We need that doorway open for fire egress. The overflow room is teleize vised. We have a couple of other items before 24th. I recommend we limit standing since were going to get to that item in an hour and a half i would guesstimate. And so for sorry. So are we. Hopefully, there will be less. I understand the parties want to continue it,ut they do need to address the board and the board needs to take a vote. Sir, youll have your time to address the item. The agenda was published last friday. Notice was sent out. At this point, i need the doorway clear. If you can move to room 421. President swig for your comfort and those of everyone in the room. I recommend there is no standing room allowed and we clear the doorway. Thats not our law, its the Fire Department law. Well wait until everybody finds a seat or alternative seating. Is there any other general Public Comment . Okay, so were going to move on to item number 3. This is adoption of the minutes. Commissioners . Before you for discussion are the minutes of the december 4, 2019 board meeting. President swig commissioners, comments . Any motion . Move to adopt is submitted. We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to adopt the minutes as submitted. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . Seeing none, on that motion, commissioner santacana . Honda . Tanner . Swig . So that motion carries 50 and the minutes are adopted. Were now moving on to item number 4. This is the rehearing request for appeal number 19110. The subject property at 301 pine street, the empire group is requesting rehearing of appeal number 19110 decided november 20, 2019. At that time upon motion by commissioner tanner, the board voted 311. Commissioner honda dissented and president swig absent to deny the appeal and up hold the permit. The determination holder is San Francisco hometown creamery. Its the sale of ice cream and waffle cones on mondays, wednesday and fridays. This is permit number 18mf f0113. President swig i was not absent, but recused myself on a conflict due to property ownership. As a continuation of that, i will see you after this is resolved. Thank you. Thank you. Well wait for president swig to exit the room. Thank you. You can proceed, please. Commissioners, im on behalf of the empire group. One of the many reasons for challenging this permit is enforcing the facilities from operating within 75 feet of a brickandmortar restaurant. They suggest that the only entrance is not streetfacing. Thats not true. Further, it was stated that earth bar does not qualify for the 75foot exception, that is also not accurate. Today is to request a full rehearing before the board. The rehearing is warranted for three reasons, all of which have not been discussed. For several votes seemed influence by ambiguous regulation. There were significant confusion by the board in all parties on how to measure the 75 feet and its unjust to apply that standard without clarity. D. P. W. Suggested that the front door is not the primary entrance to the restaurant. Again, it is the only entrance to the restaurant. Ill refer to the exhibit here. Overhead, please. Here youll see the door to the 301 pine street door, the area where the restaurant lounge area begins immediately as you walk into the door. Overall, its injustice to allow the permit to move forward without discussion. The hearing could have been continued have that. Second, we have new evidence to present. We provided new measurements in the brief and no one could have expected to have at the time of the hearing through Due Diligence. If you measure 75 feet from the curb, the distance is 36 feet to the door. The distance to the Food Service Area along the curb is 67 feet. To confirm, the measurement diagonally, the distance from the truck to the primary entrance is 51 feet 3 inches. Dpw has not provided any new measurements, but state that our measurements do not accurately reflect. We need more time to discuss and get everyone on the same page and help the board make an informed decision. The board should know weve tried to reach a compromised solution before the november 20th hearing and in active discussions with d. P. W. To pursue a move to the other side of pine street. Also, while advertising and signage requirements are not stated in the regulations or order, we are working to increase the existing signage now we know this is an issue. This is not the same as westfield mall. This is a permit application for a food truck that is 51 feet from the primary entrance to a restaurant. There are no signage requirements. Were working to acquire that. When you walk in the door, the restaurant is right there. It should be as simple as that. The 75foot rule should apply here. We would appreciate a new hearing. We could use the time to settle. You have the power to give us that time. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Hille, the agent for the permitholder. Good evening, speaking on behalf of San Franciscos hometown creamery. The appellant has not satisfied any of the criteria for a rehearing. In the brief, they claim to have been caught off guard by what they needed to present arguing the 75foot provision. However, in our brief we challenged the application of the 75foot provision asserted by the appellant. We interpreted our outline of the interpretation from where the distance rule applied, putting the appellant on notice to provide whatever measurements they felt relevant. Lack of Due Diligence is stated in the rule of the board of appeal to be grounds to deny a rehearing request. No new or different material facts have arisen. All the claims we hashed by the appellant and arguments to support their assertions were available two months leading up to the hearing date. Ice cream served in the public right of way, three days a week, for four hours, does not constitute a case of manifest injustice has occurred. The strategy of big business is and groups with unlimited resources to utilize delay tactics and methods of intimidation, to pressure Small Businesses with less resources is not new. We trust that the board did not condone bullying, intimidation or the due process. I would like to state that due to the fact that the measurements we saw were not accurate provided by the appellant, i went into the building to take pictures and do measurements myself and i was told it was private property and that i had to leave. That is all for us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from the department. Mr. Persky . Hi, San Francisco public works. No comments, but available if you have questions. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. Im sorry. Im sorry, madame chair. At the prior hearing, i was the only vote that was against issuing the permit. In this particular case, manifest injust is a really high bar. I see no reason i see no manifest injustice and the information presented was available at the prior hearing and would personally deny the request for the rehearing. Any other comments. Commissioner tanner i agree. I dont see why the measurements could not have been foreseeably provided. I didnt see the diagonal provided in the brief. Maybe i missed it. So continuing to not provide the information. I dont see how the commission could or should rehear the case. That would be my motion. So we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request on the basis that there is no manifest injustice. Okay. On that motion, commissioner santaca santaca santacana. The request is denied 40. We are now moving on to item number 5. Lets get president swig. We are now moving on to item number 5. This is the rehearing request for appeal number 19090. The subject property at 2736 broderick street, Roxanne Stachon is requesting rehearing. Decided november 20, 2019. At that time upon motion by Vice President lazarus, the board voted 50 to deny the appeal based on the basis that the permit was properly issued and because the permit is no longer required for a puc pole. The determination holder is ex tenet systems. This is permit number 19wr0024. Well hear from ms. Stachon first. Good evening, president swig and members of the board. Thank you for having me here again. I was here on november 20th repealing a wireless permit. The focus of my appeal was compliance by the department of Public Health and we had quite a bit of discussion around the Public Health report, the orientation of the proposed antenna and there was much Public Comment on the matter. After that discussion, ultimately, my appeal was unfortunately denied. However, in the next agenda item, there was appeal of another wireless antenna on green street. Coincidently, this location is right around the corner from my house. The appellants presented a similar argument. The item also had extensive Public Comment by the same commenters as my appeal. And one of the appellants referenced the site in front of my residence as part of the concern and confusion. After hearing this discussion on the green street appeal, the board voted to hold the appeal in abay yans, the same memorandum that is mentioned this evening. To deny my appeal is arbitrary and inconsistent. As i outline, i feel it meets the standard of manifest injustice, direct, obvious and very observable unfairness. Im here to correct the unfairness by making a modest request. I am asking that you continue the hearing on my rehearing until the d. P. H. Issues its updated report. Im asking for the benefit of the d. P. H. Work to be considered equally