The San Francisco board of appeals. The presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by tonights by our vice chair commissioner Vice President fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner rick swig to my left is brad the deputy City Attorney and provide the board with legal advice at the controls is gary hes the boards legal assistant im im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director. Were going to be joined as by were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. Sitting in the front right now is amanda representing the bureau of mapping and shes joined by her colleague raul shaw i believe chris buck is here in the front right now with the bureau of urban forestry and Scott Sanchez will be here shortly and representing his office and the Planning Department and Planning CommissionElectronic Devices are prohibited. Please carry on conversations 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. 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. If you intend 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 please stand now 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 commissioner president honda and commissioners one keep up the good work item item 5 a jurisdiction request on 139 Market Street that case has been withdrawn and will not be heard then on the calendar item number one general Public Comment the opportunity to address an item within the jurisdiction not on tonights calendar my general Public Comment seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners item 3 the consideration of the minutes important january 25, 2017, unless any additions, deletions, or changes. I move to adopt. My Public Comment on the minutes. Then on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that that item passes. Item number 4 is a rehearing request the subject property at 1590 sacramento street mitchel is requesting a rehearing the appeal kemp versus mapping decided january 11th voted 4 to zero with commissioner president honda absent and on the basis that was properly issued the project sponsor is with the construction of a Wireless Service facility. I watched the tape. Thank you, mr. Kemp starting with you 3 minutes to present to the board. Good evening and welcome. I request a rehearing for two reasons. Im sorry citizenship speak up is that better. Once again with good evening i request a rehearing for two reasons more information that came to my attention on the 10 of january the day before the board of appeals hearing these two items consisted of the following number one item number 4 in the Health Conditions seemed to indicate that a device or mechanism would be provided to general Public Comment if requested permanent it is not what it means what it means none was sure until i got calls the representative on the evening of january 10th explained to me what that really means is that i should call them if i have problems and no device thats fine number one and thats academic because im buying my own device and install it and as a memo to the gentleman is not really a Little Black Box with a red white it is a beige it is number one and number two this is not been addressed in either the mckenzie or the brief from the department of public works thats the whole question of control and monitoring during the operational life of the system when i asked about the installation of this facility i received an email from the department of public works saying i should call extra net a little bit like having someone say call the restaurants and talk with the owner or have his cousins from san rosa call you back and looking at this deeper i contend from the time the item the facility licenses to the time the license is are you in custody no operational monitoring, control, inspection and no recourse for a simulate citizen that feels he has an issue that needs to be addressed not by calling extra net but the department of health or the department of public works and if they cant explain and should be called a rehearing they cant explain what operational controls they have. Sir please finish our sentence your time is up. Then the appeal should be upheld. Okay. Thank you. Thank you well hear from the permit holder now. Sir. Good evening and welcome. Again. Outside for verizon we would ask you not grant the rehearing we dont think this is new materials facts or manifest injustice in the decision you made this condition number 4 has been in documents for that application ore 18 months and reflects in the dpw reflects mr. Cuttingedge had if time to review those issues and the dpw resealed in any testimony on january 11th raised this issue of mechanism that was used in order to provide ongoing testing and reminded that mr. Cuttingedge so you get to have that done its been used on facilities and other facilities and at t there are hundreds of facilities and mr. Kemp had an interpretation it is a mechanism that works and bill is here that conducted those tests either through the department or through the consultant or others we feel it is something that serves the city and the department and the condition that was written and there is again, no material fact it is new a new and certainly no manifest injustice. I have a question counselor this has been before us 4 times whats the mechanism for the extra net for the general Public Comment is closed. Wants to know what it is. They can email dpw they can moma e email or call extra net and third parties will come with permission and enter into the apartment who wants the testing with the resident present and show him the measurements for the operation of the facility these facilities are operating at low level no systems near close to the fcc guidelines. Is that only dpw or the department of Health PublicHealth Department. I dont know whether dpw has received those kinds of questions but there are other mechanisms for all other wireless facilities in San Francisco my resident within 25 feet of antenna that goes to the department of health they are a mechanism with a request to test contact i believe they contact mr. Kemp directly. Thank you well hear from the department now. Once once again. Amanda representing public works were asking the board to deny the rehearing the request on the basis that the request is not based on new facts and circumstances with that with that said, i want to provide two clarifications the request for clarification in his rehearing the request but first is that the appellants ask to the public works and department of health clarify two conditions in the permit the department of health is also in attendance at the hearing the first condition the platelet e meddle wants the mechanism for taking radio frequency measurement from the public to the intent of this condition if requested extra net should packing take reading within the residents and that is a mechanism in the unique for achieving results there is conditions the appellant wants clarification if extra net it responsible for paying one and ti dollars to the public Health Department for the intent that the Public Health should be paid for theyre just like 6 to review and determination this application could comply with the Public Health in earlier 25 this fee is authorized in public works code section 1527. The appellant asks that public works and public Health Department should explain what the radio frequency theyll make during the term of the permit so the radio frequency mentioned after the approval of the permit the first is after the installation of wireless facility and the second from the permit holder requests the rule of the permit 10 years and eligible for an additional one year term and what this basically looks like the First Reading within thirty Business Days of installation facility the permit holder musculomust file a statement registered engineer that the facility will comply with the public Health Department standard and also those 4 for the rule have statements that comply if we find the application or the permit didnt meet the 3 requirements or well issue the applicant the permit holder niece e fees and revoke the permit if it is not complied they request a monitoring if dpw and they can contact myself and we dont have it available it is to be done by engineers with calibrated equipment ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. You went through all 3 clarifications. Pardon me. Did you run through all 3 clarifications. The question the mechanism involved so if someone has a property next time to extra net and want the rh1 conditions met. We put them into contact with the permit holder they contact the company they hired to provide the radio frequency study and do that email or through phone calls i dont hear back under the permit holder i followup to make sure that is made. Thats the first question and the 10 year permit is that standard for all department of health stuff. Yeah. So like i mean give me another idea massage parlors are those ten years as well. Perhaps you want to ask dpw dph. The question is that a Standard Practice to issue and 10 year permit from the department of health. Im Principle Program manager and we have the responsibility of for massage prom we have a case coming before you. Im sure you do do massage to answer your question their annual permits that get renewed annually and the Health Department has a role to play the article 25 gives a role to play but the permit is a dph not a public permit. I heard 10 years i didnt think that a standard permit for anything is 10 years is there a representative if from filipino is there a dpw permit you guys give for 10 years. Public works in terms of the permits for renewal their traditional annual but for us the 25 wireless permit is standard 10 years other permits that may have longer durations are a project like a street light Improvement Project for permanent improvement of the sidewalks or roadways but in terms of the situation encroachment permit that be occupying public rightofway dont have a time their longer durations either removed or revoked. Thank you thats an article 25. Exactly. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . I see no Public Comment. Commissioners. If i may a briefly thats a state law requirement for antennas. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Im sympathetic to mr. Kemp but not heard any new fog that represents manifest injustice. I concur the bar for manifest injustice is high the items that mr. Kemp has noted in the rehearing the request have all been thoroughly vetted to this process so i would agree with commissioner Vice President fung. Care to make a motion. Move to deny the rehearing no new information has been appropriated and manifest injustice has not been dreementd. Thank you on that motion from the Vice President then to deny the request commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. Item 5 withdrawn and call item 6 raintree 2051 3rd street, llc versus public works of urban forestry the the subject property on third street street with the denial of 2016 a of a tree removal and a denial for removal of 3 street trees start with the appellant 7 minutes to present. Good evening and welcome. Good evening thank you, commissioners appreciate how time this evening on this issue we are naomis a rick with raintree 2051 3rd street were the sponsors the project on raintree 2051 3rd street which is a through lot on third street and illinois the project was approved in 2014 and under construction 2, 3, 42014 we came before you for an appeal of the application to remove and replace 3 eucalyptus trees dpw supported it appealed by the neighbors we requested removal and replacement of street trees on those frontages that dpw supported the board uphold the 20162017 order allowing us to remorseful them but for 48 inch box the eucalyptus are not the subject of this hearing, however, the process weve become warn of the conflict in light sidewalks along the frontages that effect our ability to plant the number of trees that was approved this information couldnt have been common it requires feedback from multiple agencies not occurs until the review stage the conflicts uncoasted is a large at at duck a fire main and junction boxes and the port has jurisdiction along illinois street didnt allow utility expansions we work closely with puc and agreed because of the modifications and to return to the misdemeanor the Tree Planting we submitted a new removal application to dpw they denied and weve appealed we worked with dpw and puc to identify to options for Tree Replacement along illinois and third street and asking you to approve that under appeal to allow for the implementation of those two options since the filing of the brief in october additional conflicts with puc and waterline they didnt support the root barriers and above grade barriers so we presented Many Solutions it is worth noting and dpw did in its belief it is common for briefs to not plant the trees often do to utilize clfltsz we evident up agreeing on two final options as shown in the projector and we believe both are viable final Solutions Notice they showed a proposed Tree Plantings as well as several known utility conflicts which i do have a larger copy if necessary but several conflicts along third street and illinois and i can get into more detail on those it is worth noting both options would assume were responsible for my in lui fees associated with trees we cant plant so first in opposition one our solution at the illinois frontage is the same under both options as a result of transformer and splice box that constrains the footage we ask one tree to be removed well plant 4, 408 inch box and 60 inch box along the frontage as well as a planter strip which will otherwise not be required if we can accommodate those 60 inch box trees that are deemed near specimen trees theyre provided a nice pedestrian street along illinois the tree removal along third street frontage has not been one of public controversy and it is calculated as that relates to utilities on third street are federal, state, and local in opposition one a partial relocation of a waterline that runs the length of the property in order to accommodate a clear area from my waterlines that puc requires this will allow is to plant a total of two new 24 inch box trees along third street it is not vetted by puc or other effected utilities but we feel there is genuine support to explore this requires other puc were not sure we can accommodate this but in ongoing discussions with puc and other utility providers in opposition two if one is not achieveable well plant the strips along the west side this option provides so the two existing trees to the north will remain and this option provide a landscape buffer for pedestrians within the sidewalk and third street could sure traffic buffers experienced by pedestrians one of the front doors were very interested in making sure as longterm owners this is a nice frontage for the property 2, 3, 4 conclusions were awaiting feedback from the utility provider we have enough information to approve those options key points to consider are first both the options are supported by puc and second we as a developers are committed to planting the maximum number of trees feasible and rain trees at dpw and pucs discretion we respectfully request the board of appeals amend the permit to allow for those two other peoples money as a final noted we request due to the construction schedule that moving forward dpw and puc be given jurisdiction on that matter we anticipate this work will need to be approved over the next 45 days and appreciate the maximum flexibility with respect to the jurisdiction thank you. I have a question sir, i mentioned longterm ownership are you planning on holding. This is a rental well own in perpetuity. In terms of the difference the two trees to the south i guess versus option duo two is that the change that the size of boxes and species in terms of this root bulb is changed. In terms of could there be more of the species no in my xraerns the answer a new i can let chris opine weve not studied with respect to the species the species has been out laid as a box but i do believe that a change in the break downs species will change the count along this frontage. Thank you mr. Buck. Good evening mr. Buck. Good evening chris buck with uttering public works ill followup the appellants presentation ive got some photos of the site just to refresher everyone memories can i have the overhead . The original subject would be two red iron eucalyptus trees theyre significant