Robert brian providing legal advice and gary at the board and im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director were wirj at the table a Scott Sanchez the Planning Department and Planning Commission we expect joe duffy the senior board of directors representing the department of building inspection and we have jean in the front row from the health and Environmental Health and expect to be joined by june from that division walked in the door and also an with the City Attorneys Office on behalf of the district phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. Now were to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking so, please stand if you plan it testify do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you very much so well move to item one general Public Comment this is for any member of the public that wishes to speak not an calendar tonight any general Public Comment seeing none, well move inform commissioners questions or comments and anything commissioners okay item 3 is the board consideration of the minutes of december 9, 2015, meeting additions, deletions, or changes addition to the minute if not a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you is there any any Public Comment on the minutes . Okay. Seeing none we have a motion by the Vice President to adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner wilson with commissioner swig absent that motion carries well move tone to item 4 a rehearing request and the subject property is at 2027, 20th after the board get a letter requesting a rehearing viruses dbi with the Planning Department approval that was decided on the board voted it was properly issued the permit holder and the project to build an horizon addition with four bedrooms and dinging all liquifying and two car garage start with the requester maam, decorate any reason it fled inspector duffy for this im not certain we do but i think that is more about the Planning Commission then issues. Fine shall we precede sir 3 minutes. My name is allen that is my sister were the coowners the property adjacent to the property weve discovered the filing of approval by the Property Owner we find out if the sf Planning Department that was not reports by the city and the 3 impacted neighbors have confirmed in writing no neighborhood notification regarding the meeting if lee lee claimed a preapplication meeting was held and this initiations about the meeting was sent to the neighbors one can clarify it is it doesnt comply monday through friday must be conducted within 6 00 p. M. And 9 00 p. M. This invitation must be sent 14 calendar dazed before the meeting lee didnt follow the instructions many comprehensions and the validity of the meeting first of all, on the signin sheet provided by row there are two conflicting dates of the meeting one is august 2007 and the other one im sorry april 6th, under oath no printed names and addresses that are Key Information the city requires for the meeting another consistency the Something Like that sheet shows held at noriega sheet but the meeting provided by lee it shows the meeting wagon 20th avenue not noriega street and then they pointed out i wendy actually attended the meeting on wednesday august 15, 2007, i have my employers notarized affidavit i was actually at work all day didnt leave my work and also, if i had attended the meeting on the signin sheet should be my signature and here a copy of my professional license and my there showing my signature that doesnt match any signatures on the signin sheet and i also filed a Police Reports on fraudulently and the concerns of the neighbors adjacent to the property site the letters have any signature on it which didnt match the signature of my proposed on my documents so the board denied our appeal on the fact we didnt bring fourth our outlooks and didnt follow the mandatory process that allows us to voice our concerns therefore we ask the board it grant us the rehearing and future investigate the matter in revoking the permit thank you. Mr. Leon and ms. Leno leno the radius map and the address included for you both your names and the address are you saying you, you never received that. We never received the neighborhood notification about the preapt meeting and two neighbors didnt get invited we didnt get anything in the mail we didnt know about the meeting and. Your autograph answered his question thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Williams anyone on behalf of the spokesman it took me and while to find that they go back to the preapplication that was held in 2007 more than 8 years ago and they skip over the fact theyve received all the other mailings i look at the references they make hartley is an architect that was hired at the time he signed an affidavit under prejudicing he held the meeting for a preapplication meeting but no explanation theyve received the other mailings only exhibit one and theres is 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the 367 notification certainly and received the notification from dbi when the permit was orchard they filed an appeal they received notification this year and 2014 and one in 2013 so they want to take you back to the preapplication meeting maybe the da can confirm the preapplication procedures have changed substantially i believe since 2007 and for all i know this was in full compliance as you can see on the mailing lists the address of their address 8023 appears and they had a hearing on the project itself at the board of appeals i dont know what will be accomplished by sending it back or making this project sponsor that has gone through the years of application first having the application rejected in 2003 and new Building Application that was rejected and this was in 2007 and was substantially detailed over a long period of time by Department Review and the neighbors quite frankly and so the preapplication meeting i believe was held and held properly under the rules in 2007 and 2006 and there would be nothing accomplished by making the project sponsor no to the pre. Commissioner fung. The affidavit and the mailing list that you provided as part of this briefing was dated 2014 i see nothing from the 2006 slash 7. Exhibit number one. Which was. Thats the see theyre talking about a preapplication meeting before the second application that was filed in 2008, so the preapplication meeting was held in 2006 and 2007 before that application was filed theyre taking us way back in history. Such not provided anything. Exhibit one. No, thats for the. Preapplication. You have a declaration from hawk lee he executed looks like about the time he filed in april of 2008 and his letter from august of 2007 thats when we held the meeting in august of 2007 you see the list only the sister appears i was guessing in my brief not his wife or sister the appellant didnt receive the preapplication he didnt live there or no interest in the property not on the first list if you look at the documents it is 2007 looks like they was held on august 15, 2007. So the affidavit was actually much later; right . Yeah. And no dates on the mailing list . No. And thats just the way i found it in the file once planning found it. And it was labeled as you can see preapt meeting. Are you finished commission. Last question any response to what they indicate are forges. Their signatures were forged i have no response about that at all again, were talking a preapplication meeting over 8 years ago i didnt have any reason to building that anything was forged or not forged i dont have by information. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Sew Scott SanchezPlanning Department i dont have much to add to note the appellant and both parties in the request hearing theyve not received the briefs are on the mailing list that the city was sending out the 311 notification not understanding why we didnt receive it theyre on the mailing list for the sending of the 311 notification and with regards to the preapplication filing it is changed but it is a code requirement it has been refined and surprised that was done in 2007 because it was really more formalized as part of discretionary review reform undertaking in 2008, 2009 but in any fefbt i understand the hearing all the issues before the project could be raised concerns about the project and the board of appeals is the final party to weigh in thats all i have to at t add at this point im available to answer any questions. So was the process extremely different regarding the preapplication meetings. Yeah. There were not standards the specificity where and when it must be held those came about in 2008, 2009 as part of dr reform process any, any event the issues get addressed even today a project comes in and were supposed to check to see a preapplication meeting sometimes that gets missed and raised during the preapplication process the preapplication is a notice before the application is submitted once the application is submitted that is hard to undo to go back and pretend it didnt happen have the issues addressed and resolved prior to submitting the application you know i cant speak to why those issues are unresolved between the parties i dont know what kind of conversations certainly a great length of time seven years since the application was filed in any events the 311 nose on our records were mailed to the parties involved. Thanks. When i indicated the Residential Design Team preserved changed around 2008 or 9 currently you wont expect a permit application unless you have a preapt. That was around 2008. Also the same. Yeah. A lot of those changes came about as part of progress for the discretionary review process with the preapplication noticed to make it earlier to go require the Residential Design Team review and standardized review that application came in around the same time before and after i cant say. Okay. Anything mr. Duffy no any Public Comment on this item . Please step forward. And because well be speaking through an interpreter okay. Excuse me. I have two pictures id like to show on the overhead. Slide them down so theyre in view. Leave the yeah. Okay. Good evening, everybody i need to translate more understanding. Okay. speaking foreign language. almost 20 years speaking foreign language. my name is simon mar, i live at 2026 avenue living here 20 years i come to object to the project on 20th avenue whereby they fill up a 3 Story Building backyard is back to back to my backyard. Okay. speaking foreign language. im here again second time here to report to you ladies and gentlemen, that i have never received any kind of information regarding this project the only letter he received the two that was designated for september the 14 of this year and november 2nd of this year. speaking foreign language. the reason why im opposing to this plan was because in 1995 i was buying my property the minute that i arrived in the morning i opened my window i can see the whole view of the transit mountains and theres a pretty and consoling view for me and my parents if this building is built for 3 stories that will become when i open my windows all i see a big wall in front of me speeding i would ask that if this is something that happened to your house would what a w would you think in our area most of buildings are older twostory at all and this particular building is a permitted will be rising for 3 stories. If they built twostory i accept but if they try to build 3 stories i oppose. Opposite. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The listing in the mailing list for his address shows c k is that him. speaking foreign language. yes, i am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment open this item seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. Commissioners. The standard for rehearing is new information or manifest injustice new information was provided on the preapt and you know rather disturbing to see things that potentially were forgeries, however, any new information on manifest injustice say was brought forth to the subject matter of last hearing the appeal of the permit no new information unfortunately. Discussion. Care to make a motion . Move to deny the request for rehearing on the basis no new information was provided. 0 on that motion from commissioner fung to deny the request. Commissioner president lazarus. Commissioner honda and commissioner wilson okay. That that motion carries a vote of 4 to zero thank you. Moving on to appeal doing business as auto versus the department of Public Health at 1200 geneva avenue protesting the hearing of a tobacco permit pursuant to the all hands on deck on the new tobacco in the primarily district exceeds 45 this light case no. And well hear in the appellant please step forward thank you. So you have 7 minutes to present our case to the board. Overhead please. Good evening all commissioners my name is insuring are you the Business Owner under San Francisco i have a young and new Business Owner if not to try to against the new tobacco law but my side of the story to all commissioners the story happened to me a father and a daughter one day after daughter graduated if college she planned to open her own business she try to borrow a lot of money to buy the business including the advertent so after the ownership the staff tell her not cleveland for the tobacco because of the new tobacco new law and on her applications was denied as a result, the daughter cant sell the large tobacco inadvertent they tried to find a solution and the daughter was disappointed how she should know about the new tobacco law since denied shes working in her business 7 a daze a week and on the 15 hours per day she tried to do a survey and asked around one thousand people including the police and stiff 19city staff and neighborhood the Business Owners and taxi drivers and others to regarding any knowledge of the new tobacco law the result is none heard about the new tobacco law the business started to file the tobacco and the customers are thinking the new Business Owner will be selling tobacco to minors or legally against the federal or city law the business reputation is impacted so, now shes asking commissioners to find a solution for that so dear commissioners if you are the parents of the daughter would you do the same as the staff did as the daughter evolved and tell her theres a new law existing or get the dollar the new law created all we know Affordable Health care act was sent in 2010 by our private by barack obama and to introduce the new law after the law created he give everybody is reasonable period to learn the new law based on on the fact and the reason we believe that this should be given the commissions a formal notice to introduce the new law at a reasonable time especially you see the evidence from the flyers which is the employee sent to me it is dates the 16th of august after the law create after seven months they sent all the Business Owners a form notice we finished our business transaction at that point we hold a lot of the Tobacco Products we cant sell because we dont have the permit so we need a solution how to deal with the large vicinity so i believe the United States democratic country leave people want to emigrated to the United States because they believe that competition ability to pursue life compared to other countrys personally im not a smoker so the new tobacco law a helpful for healthy but at the same time, i Building People also have the firemen of choice very important to rehope our commissioners can reconsider our special case to give a chance to a young Business Owner we appreciate it Merry Christmas to all thank you. Okay. We can hear in the department now. Good evening. Im june the manager of this program at the San Francisco department of Public Health and the viral Health Branch so the law governing our issuing the resale tobacco permit is of the all hands on deck the law was amended in december 2014 by a unanimous vote of board of supervisors and it was enacted in january of 2014 it is a very complicated law we work hard to get our laws as as quickly as possible we issued draft for Public Comment in may or 2014 and then it was finalize in august of 2014 thats what you saw on the overhead with our final version weve been complun along before that in this particu