The sgrlz the presiding officer is commissioner honda and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazarus and commissioner swig we expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here tonight to my left is thomas owen for legal advice and gary boards executive director. Were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. We expect Senior Citizen builder inspector joe duffy dbi and Scott Sanchez representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and joined by from the public works the public works of mapping please be advised the ringing of and use of cell 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. 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 do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you so first item is general Public Comment for people that wish to address the boards on an item not on tonights calendar any general Public Comment please step forward. Good evening, commissioners my name is georgia swedish im going to speak about the informational hearing an february 24th for mr. Jolene about the residential Design Guidelines i watched it other than the website and it was very interesting and the thing that caught my attention was a q and a with commissioner swig about roof decks and i want to brought to your attention Planning Commission action think a dr i was not the requester i i am an immediate neighbor that was da the action memo was issued excuse me december 22, 2014, and the hearing think the question is 11 at that hearing the commission does take dr and they action included rove the proposed deck on the revolver of three story addition and the basis for the recommendation if i may ill read it the roof deck was found to be incongruous encompassed with the development on the block that he dont exist on any property other than the adjacent house this project is at 4 61, 27th and so i thought that was interesting in the context of the commissioners conversation with the staff in terms of what it means it a privacy or neighborhood character ill add one more thing the dr requester and none of the neighbors asked for the roof deck to be removed that was totally at the discretion of the Planning Commission they took that action on their on hyatt i thats my statement if youre interested thank you very much have a good evening. Thank you there it is right up there. Thank you admit other general Public Comment okay. Seeing none move on to item number 2 commissioners questions or comments. Commissioners optimistically warriors get to close us out did anyone note the giants win thank you. Okay on item 3 for you considerations of the minutes of the april 27, 2016. If no additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to accept. Move to adopt. Any Public Comment on the minutes seeing none, then on Vice President motion to adopt the minutes commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig okay. That motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you moving on to item 4 which is the appeal case versus the San Francisco public works of mapping an lombard street appealing the issuance to system inc. Of abdomen wireless box permit a personal wireless facility and because i know there is issues getting into the building tonight can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak on the people is that appellant and permit Holder Council well begin with the appellant. Thank you. Good evening commissioner honda and commissioners ryan partnering son it is a installation facility on a street pole in front of any clients property that street pole will be placed in front of of residential bedroom and ill show you an image on the overhead. This is why my client is concerned about this were here tonight not to make a giant fight about the law regarding wireless facilities were here as a matter of inhibit to ask for a conversation for verizon as Good Neighbors to talk about this installation across the street or further down the block not right in a residence face verizon has to their council just a few moments ago ago since i have a map and actually on the computer would be better this map shows the proposed location with the green pen and as well as a handful of other approval of the minutes theyre not suitable to locate the installation the issue if we can georgia back to the overhead there are a lot more poles in the immediate facility we want to look at it and talk with them about we have utilities that people went out to the area and it is doable to relocation this proposal weve not had an opportunity to work through that it maybe not another site buses dozens and dozens of poles in the immediate vicinity must be a place better he request you to get the next available date to sit down with verizon and talk about Public School id like to give my client a chance to speak that is important here at this location as compared to others. My my name is vince young represents the tenants and the ownership of lombard street and i just wanted to voice any concerns offering over the impact the pole with the reduction of light and views clearly from the adjacent windows as well as the impact that could have been some of the children a daycare down below in the commercial space and im not sure if there has been studies in regards i know there has been studies but studies in regards to the effect upon children and longterm exposure for the wireless retireeers the children will probably be under 8 to 10 hours a day it could impact them so i dont know if those studies is were done in regards specifically to children id like to request that if possible given the fact across the street a library with many children present all during the day as well the windows that face the library are both the childrens section and teens section of the library and a playground up the block so i ask you take those factors into consideration thank you. If i could direction the boards attention to exhibit h of the permit holders brief those are photos from the residential window showing the location of the pole and this is going to be a canister 18 inches diameter by 3 inches placed on top of the law we know about the limiting of the jurisdictions ability to do anything about that but beyond if issue there is a Property Value, in fact, simply from having the canister in front of the window and so we again are simply asking for a week or so to talk with them to see if there is another solution and interested in these contributing to the cost if there is any of reengineering for two different locations t. Thank you counselor. Well hear from the permit holder now. Representative. Good evening inspections jim heard with the Law Enforcement representing Verizon Wireless with me tonight on behalf of the verizons contractor and agent fixing the systems is mason and has here in case you have questions about compliance with the standards bill Housing Element of the Housing Element and edison hes more than wellversed on the subject auto ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. With that, said id like to remind the board what it is were talking about were talking about a small canister on top of a steel muni pole those pictures are what is already there theyre looking at a steel pole out of this window and by the way, hes over stated the size of canister not 18 inches feinstein inches in diameter thats one of the thresholds of the dpw definition to obstruct light and view we tenderloin attached a set of plans to our brief you have a copy. But the bottom line here this is similar to equipment that you see on light poles in San Francisco including on this very Street Corner not clear from any of the paragraphs but if you look at intersection on google earth youll see a utility pole right around the corner no further than the pole were talking about it operationally is were talking about visual impact the second thing keep in mind this it is reviewed by 3 departments planning and public works and Public Health department all included it meets all the standards under the citys code ill submit to you those finding with correct and more substantial evidence and should be upheld this is a moving target in their brief they raised a single contributor issue notice not a word about that tonight and hope they abandoned it as we pivoted in our brief tonight they want to ask you for time to give them time reengineer our Clients Network well, that is thats not something that board some entertain for several reasons in the first place not mentioned in the brief and therefore raise saviors due process questions, and, secondly, no reason to look at alternating sites unless code compliant issues there isnt and finally as ms. Mason will explain none of the poles we looked at the poles in the area and ruled out by city staff or under some regulation so this is really not a serious issue is it so really just an effort another delay and in theyve explicitly appealed to the radio waves that is what this is about the appellants declaration it was designed it is about radio waves now hes dressed it up but the alleged impacts on the property because of third partys supposedly afraid of radio waves and the courts held that was preempted as preempted he came in here and said i to deny this i dont want to imposed to radio waves no merit to this appeal with that said, im going to turn it over to to ms. Mason unless you have questions for me. Thank you. Im going to put that map back up on the overhead so nicole mason good evening first, i also want to point out that we have tried to have meetings with the appellant and his representatives and to discuss the answer questions they have to explain in further detail we already have in phone conversations with the appellants representative why no other pole can be used weve had those conversations by phone, however, where the representatives not only myself i personally have had such conversation but two other people from my office give given the same information to the representative and two representatives from the Law Enforcement verizons Law Enforcement had that conversation so for 40 that reason no need for more time to discuss we have discussed and offered to sit down and further discuss what can possibly be done unfortunately is nothing we have tried we are submitted previously to the city an application for another pole location to fulfill that service need and it was denied by the city as part of dpw process we suggested yet another what that maps shows actually points out what approval of the minutes were denied by permitting those other sites if you read the text on this map a number of poles in the invented that are off the table the city doesnt allow us to attach the concrete poles more the city allows us to attach to feeder poles the poles that so for all of this myriad of reasons from city discretion to the safety reasons we are not able to use any other pole and then the appellant showed another map with more poles across a larger areas the dots in the leaguer area are outside of the service area those are extremely low power one hundred and 22 rad i cannot wattage and extremely small. Okay your time is up. Ms. Mason on the two poles denied by permitting on what basis. For views both of them. This is no the a view pole. It was not denied by the other locations showed as denied by permitting were denied by the city the reason because of corridors and it was going to you know were those two the balance then not all of those are feeder poles or. They are one is red dots. All the rest of the red dots on the map i pickup i put up Traffic Signals were not allowed to attach to Traffic Signals this is the mta they own those will Traffic Signals were not allowed to attach to a couple translated feeder poles which was talked about the dock active not allowed to attach usually the puc owns the decorative poles theyre not permitted. Weve looked at ever alternative this is an experience thank you. Well hear from the department now. Good evening commissioner honda and fellow commissioners raul with public works ill back up slightly quickly to talk about the permitting process the applicant applied in 2015 after reviewing the documents on november 24th public works issued a stamp of approval in accordance with the public works code too this 0 approval was done after confirming with the location didnt have Significant Impact in terms of light and viability this was after confirming with the go Health Department so after the approval went up they fold the permit as shown in exhibit b approval to all Property Owners and residents within a 100 percent and 50 radius this of the mailing addresses section requires a physical posting within the vicinity and exhibit b shows pictures confirming that was also completed within the allocated timeframe and after so after the notations from public works received the objections to the proposed locations and he would say it on january 11th after the hearing the hearing officer made a recommendation and it was approved on january in 2016 approving the property location and after confirm this approval and after approving the permit the final determination was the copy was posted at the subject location as well just a couple of main complains presented with the accurate studies not done on the radio frequency so as part of progress public works requires a statement in the Health Department xhichl that it meets the fcc standards and Public Health department confirmed the highest diminished frequency was 15 percent of the standards and one of the main issues was that is the aesthetics of it and the effect of the property public works as a requirement confirms with the Planning Department this didnt have adverse impacts in terms of light and public works determined it was this was in compliances with article 25 and allowed the permit im available to answer any questions. Mr. Shaw those two sites across the street were both denied by your department based on the new order. Unfortunately. It was done by planning. So unfortunately i dont have that information specifically for those two poles but for the permit holders statement it was a visibility issue and that comes from planning. This metal pole is a muni pole. An mta. Are those considered a utility pole. Yes. They are considered light poles because of the agency who holds it is a Utility Agency so it is considered a utility pole. Mta is the Utility Agency . I may have miss stated it in some instances they provide services to muni a services and things of that nature. How does it relate to the overwhelming premise on the utilities how they use the public rightofway. Im sorry. Muni and their infrastructure was provided by taxpayers the Utility Companies were allowed to use light poles because of their investment in the infrastructure. Yes. So in this specific case we do require a pole authorization and mta got the authorization for this pole was allowed to be used for this specific facility. And how many objections did you have. I believe 14 total objections. All right. Thank you. Yes. Okay. We can take Public Comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. Or do i want to hear in planning first oh, if planning is ready. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so i think we reviewed this and gave me gave me not he noted this was on the scale of mta pole the design was considered appropriate by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Committee of the historical that is 11 feet from the nearest residential window and not impair light and air or substantially impair from the dwelling only depends when first, we own the pole a majority of steel policy but in this case we own this pole an mta pole the external antenna is 9 feet from the window and the internal antenna is in front of a smallscale window and thats not the case more than 9 feet away given that we approved the site and the planner is familiar with the sited and even though context he noted that was best design alternative to have in relation to other two operations to using suitors and reduces the noise from fans and is exempt erics although i think youve told you everything. You dont think about the other. I dont have details other than this is the best design alternative and perhaps the project sponsor will more detailed information about the denials. I have a question mr. Sanchez is mta followup to commissioner fungs question required to allow those mobile facilities on their poles. I believe there are circumstances we could deny it certainly that would be one of the conditions we have authority over that were leasing the property and leasing the facility somewhat so i think that maybe the case although really have to defer to the public works and the City Attorneys Office if this is limits there and this is not in the public rightofway. And the city getting a feed for this mobile facility insult on their property. Ill assume that mta is getting that put together i dont know the delays its up to mta. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Okay. Ready for Public Comment then. First speaker please step forward Public Comment. Good evening, commissioners my name is john im a citizen the San Francisco and appointed by the mayor to the board of supervisors to represent the Public Safety of seniors and people with disabilities there are particular points of interest that seniors and people with disabilities have with the use of cell phones and the frequency of the cell phones receiving the towers particularly under consideration for 4r5078d street i feel that is very important that it be development on that tower particularly for any concern for the ability for the residents of that neighborhood seniors and people with disabilities to have access to communication devices so they can notify their family and friends and medical care provider where theyre at the second point it is evident not combruk u obstruct the view from the windows and fits the dimensions of 14 inches in diameter and not obstruct the view and on an heritage approved pole so, please do not regard the appeal as valid and agree with the application approved on march 4 the installation of this receiving device for verizon. Cellular. I have a question no cellular 0 o service on that block. Not that im aware of tell me where else. That was a question was there sell last year your statement indicated people can have sell last year service so no existing sell last year service think outside the box 0 block. I cannot answer that question. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im bob planet hold came to support dpw suggestion and oppose this appeal i think outside the box is important to recognize that in a hilly city it is densely populated with highrise there are series there are spotty and intermediate service and unreliable selfservice those antenna have a benefit to make sure there is reliable selfservice coverage in restrict can be helpful when it comes to a coalition of vehicles when someone is injured if that someone has a Health Problem inside that block we can quickly summon holy help without entering features there is a safety benefit ecp ill as not just for seniors and people with disabilities but kids get injured youve hero assertions by the appellant in terms of Property Value question have you received any sort of appraisal where other areas have had cell phone antenna and a change in Property Values the way the economic circumstances is it so hard to believe that Something Like that could diminish Property Values when theyve been escalating for a long time you need to look at 9 assertion if they are based with evidence or stated about the radiation whether an assertion without basis in law or fact but again, a safety benefit to having overlapping in fill coverage for all this i think that merits following up with the dpw decision to agree and authorize this thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Dwg commissioners im here because i have a disabled husband like many men is suburban and when he has an emergency drives himself to the hospital the last time i was terrified he was passing a kidney stone and i was faired the health conform expired so have the city coverage across the board thank you. Any Public Comment on item this item please step forward. Good evening my name is alex a 23 young professional and have a stake in supporting verizon antenna i oppose the appeal it is in the full representation in common areas with high concentrations of people in areas from personal recessional experience like museums and concert and the giants game reception and network assess a poor ironically the park named at t park has poor reception not just Recreational Service but when the emergency are not on site when gathering or other recreations the concentration on the weekends and evening could hinder the receptions when actual emergencies occurring it is for the benefit of recessional uses and internet excuse me is it so essential for citizens and emergency personal in the city for the safety of all the small antennas are placed on existing infrastructure there obtaining security of areas is a necessity for better reception mobile phones uncle for individual has increased as mobile phone assess as individual mobile phone data increases with the use of app and other background applications running on top of of the phones present the need for better Wireless Infrastructure is a necessity to meet the access i urge you to reject their appeal thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah commissioners my name is jim im a homeowner and been a resident of San Francisco for 48 years ive been an activist for a lot of that time and a few years ago i suddenly found might have a Senior Citizen i have heart conditions that make me stay a little bit closer to my medical expert system and appreciate having a cell phone for that reason since im not home a lot of the time and would urge you to reject this appeal based on the fact that the growing dependancy i dont have a landline my cell phone is my only source of communication with the outside side world i travel in many places in the city i urge you to reject this and let the cell phone system be let it building all over the place you know unfortunately, it a way of life and it is become a way of life for people like me Senior Citizens thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Hi my name is i was present with the San Francisco Small Business network for 3 years and been a sales porn aspirin on the streets of San Francisco for decades now and in order for me to do my business i need my cell phone to be able to not drop calls and be able to get ahold of people my wife works across the bay bridge and my daughter goes to School Across the Golden Gate Bridge so in the world Emergency Services and safety purposes that is just an imperative to have those networks the upcoming staying ahead of the curb as the previous speaker all this new technology and the news that is coming up i do did coming back come across the lombard association and they talked about the same things ive said beforehand and those are volunteer groups and they care quite a bit i wanted to read two sentences we support the creation of the proposed small set networks not neighborhood neighboring to improve the reliability for merchant and help our customers get in touch with us and better Wireless Infrastructure but it is more lets be more productive merchant and customers and i think that the applicant here have gone through all the things and seemed like theyve done everything they can and with the areas the department of this city and county of San Francisco so i would urge you to deny the appeal thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment. Good evening ami matt a San Francisco resident and also an excellent employee. Im sorry youre an employee of the permit holder your time to increase the allocated time to the permit holder thats okay if you want to speak under rebuttal you can. I notice there were questions about alternative candidates i have some of the answers. The board can ask you questions during rebuttal please step forward. Good evening, commissioners my name is dick i moved to San Francisco but 19 im sorry. Im louis any train the thought i lived in the city for 4 two years you did math ill be short because the previous speakers that supported rejecting this appeal have spoken and we they passed a rule no cell phones on the campus we appealed inform emergencies and safety reasons that came if handy for two working parents with a Small Business when our schedules changed we had access to our children before or after school i ask you to please rejected this appeal thank you very much. Thank you dick. Any other Public Comment. Seeing none, well start our renewable with the appellant. Thank you, commissioners Ryan Patterson for the appellant first off ill be brief i dont know ms. Bloomer anyone it agreeing against the benefits of cell phone i wouldnt know what to do without mine anyone argued that cell phone covers coverages is blocked and inaccurate we want verizon to have a slightly Better Network the issue is if we look at the computer screen for a moment t the alternative sites are few the southwest chiropractor for example, shows one alternative site denied but according to any clients survey on the overhead there are 4 poles on that corner so we would simple like to know why the altered are not viable i dont know a one week continuance after theyve waited a year for a permit will not prejudice them or delay their permit approval we simply do want the 3 foot Budget Committee by whatever pole in front of window and the board looks to the exhibits on the overheads as you can see this is rather a large pole that will go on top of the pole outside of my clients window if there are no other locations then any client can accept that fact we simply want to sit down and find out if this is the case and be convinced there was a note in the brief it appeared that proper notice was not given that has noted in the brief was due to the fact it dpw raised issues with the sunshine request one of the interesting things that came out of that on the overhead is the conditions of the permit the lengthy documents signed by the city and the permit holder section 4. 1 does reference the citys right to move or relocation these facilities with Public Welfare warranties is there is federal law preempting some of the rules to deal e deal with that they can roam if a better recognition and well suggest that prop 3 might be a better location thank you for your consideration and we hope to have a chance to sit down with verizon over the next week with our utilities consultants and try to work out this. What was the document you received to. Is that a some type of rental agreement. This is a first page entitled city and county of San Francisco utilized conditions permit for the construction and maintenance of the facilities within the public rockefeller by the certificate for the corporation ill be happy to put that into evidence. The permit representatives reached out prior to this appeal isnt that correct. I dont know it they reached out to me we certainly called them not had our technical questions answered accurately i winning wish my are associate was here he just had a baby and unfortunately not here. Thank you. Well take rebuttal from the permit holder. Thank you, commissioners i just want to put this visual of impact to bed an experience in shadow play i said earlier what we are dealing with is fear the radio waves they have to come up with something for radio waves weve demonstrated no basis to that so, now were back to visual impact the dpw has adopted a existence for that elaboration an obstruction of view this doesnt qualify we have attached the pap smears a 40 some page letter that didnt qualify and from common sense stand point the saying is always a picture is worthy a worthy a thousand years as you can see this is not is a significant change from what is already there and tell you that from their own photographs of photographs so there is no issue of visual impact here and the other issues ill defer to the expert representatives mr. Dulavich. Good evening matt an convalescent employee he want to answer our questions about the intersection an application was filed for wireless facility at the pole located at the Southwest Corner of this intersection and it was specifically denied by the Planning Department and substantially the department of public works and claiming in a letter in 72015 and by public works on april 1st, 2015, then pursued another candidate on the north west intersection northwest corner there and similarly although not application was filed in working with mr. Omar with the Planning Department he specifically geared us away from the candidate because the visual impact to answer your questions about conform in the area there is a difference between conform in captivity and such that you might be able to get a signal while walking down the street with nonpeak hours but the problem this facility specifically addresses is that the capacity so during high traffic times being able to get a signal to your phone and continue that phone call or continue the services you expect for that device. Thank you. Okay well take renewal rebuttal from the department and public works do go back on mr. Functions question about this a facility pole in reviewing the order section 5 of the public works order for wisely facility the wireless pole a light pole maybe uses and on the poles authorization the use for the pole this is considered a transit pole it is for a wireless facility and undertaking in regards to the other locations based on what approving or disapproving said no place submitted for one of the corners so public works will not deny the ability to review the feasibility of that location and the other location was to be initially denied by planning in terms of the visibility and aesthetics bans this and for this particular application the Planning Department reviewed it and approved it and public works urges this be mr. Shaw when you read that portion transit and light. Yes. Where that from. Our public works order. That was the one that was revised most recently. Correct at 441 of a supplement to the public works code. Somehow after alls hearings in these types of cases i dont recall that that included light poles. So, yeah it is in section 5 i dont know it is specifically listed those 3 poles types. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. You know every case weve had a a telephone pole i dont recall coming in front of us. A muni pole or a light pole that means they can put it up anywhere except for not allowed did stone and the concrete. I dont have a problem with that permit i havent heard anything that disskadz me. Well not have impact on given their ability to mitigate however, you know, i do need to make a statement there this is not about cell service theyre talking about rolling out additional products thats where those cases with coming in front of us however, i was going to ask for further clarification perhaps a discussion with dpw on exactly where those things are allowed but up to my fellow commissioners, if you want to continue this. I dont have have problem with more Additional Information from the department and my extort tenure in the 3 nature years this is our 6 hundred case for these mobile facilities i do think that the overseeing particular ones are anymore attractive than the big boxed that at t were putting in front of Peoples Properties i can go either way. I guess im missing the point if those are allowed in the code and it meets all the requirements. I think this is the point youre making is correct. With the following caveat if this is the result of a different situation in terms of their Voting Rights as proven by law versus allowing at least with one of our departments thats what i was wondering and then that puts that deservedly in a different type of situation as to what the departments and what this board can do. Thats my question was mta required by the legislation or mandatory for this agreement that the city is allowing this to happen to in front of the public or the citizens homes so i agree with your process commissioner fung. Youre the man. I wont mind continuing it i heard a lot of people say i dont know ive heard a lack of deposition i dont disagree that i dont disagree it maybe comply appropriate but there is questions that were offered by my fellow commissioners and the answer was i dont know and i always like to make sure we have a q and a the best we can before we move forward i dont see a sense of urgency here so i would move to continue it so seek further information also to allow the appellant and the permit holder further conversation for a compromise. Is that a motion. Sure. Okay. So well need a date and a little bit more specifically what it is you would like from whom the department to come back with information. Id like other relative departments in respect many questions i cant i think there was a question about mta. Maybe commissioner fung can help with the questions. And then the issue of compromise to find an alternative site what is the right alternative site. Id like to add to your motion commissioner that the dpw provide a briefing to us not only on the public law they cited public works law but to provide any other pertinent information related to what is transit utility and light. Excuse me commissioners not my turn to speak i want to suggest we have answers those these questions. Actually were in the bottom right now so okay. So putting the question of the date aside the motion to continue the appeal to allow time for the department to provide a written submittal on the public works Code Provisions they cited in their testimony and more information. On the definition. Within that portions the code. And also to allow the parties time to discuss the pocket of an alternative location. Yes. And a date commissioners your calendar is coming up are very heavy i would recommend that the urban forester date the board will have to june 29th i dont know what you want to do. 4 appeals that night. Yeah. Perhaps mr. President , whether the parties are available that date available that date. Just regarding the availability of that date is june 29th so will that be okay. If not for mr. Patterson. Okay. July 20th . Mr. Patterson july 20th. Counselor representing permit holder. Okay. Okay. So then we have a motion from commissioner swig to continue this to july 20th and for the reasons stated previously and the brief from the department you want to set a pace limit. 8. Their brief usually not long. 8 actually yeah 8. The motion maker agreed to 8. And i assume i want that submitted thursday prior to the claim on that motion commissioner fung commissioner lazarus no. And commissioner honda. Okay. So theres a vote of 3 to one with one absent and that that motion carries it is continued. Thank you so well move on to item number 5 for versus the department of building inspection with the Planning Department on 32 avenue appealing the issuance of 2016 so jerold lee to relocation the existed lightwell and add two bedrooms and full bath open first floor at rear the building reconfigure the late and add 3 skylights with a gas fireplace and replace a garage door coming down the pike well start with the appellant. Go ahead you have 7 minutes. Im the attorney for the ladys their ladies that lived in higher homes for 7 decades theyre both at that point will be relevant but both on fixed incomes and both lost their husbands one was burger to be here we took this appeal i want to clarify why i didnt file a brief frankly it is con scombrushgs i thought engineers to help us but it became in sewer mountable we have to argue that and a stated place mrs. Cochran will read a letter and number of people in the neighborhood we have some who will speak in the community combustibility section but the number of neighbors wouldnt be here and some are here had to leave to pick up children the petition on file with the number of people in the neighborhood it is unanimously parking, and size ms. Cochran is concerned her south side the property has been an open space for most of the Property Line and they want to build in that and appears to me at least they want to take out the garage im going to turn it over to im available to answer any questions in radio minute but im going to turn it over to to mrs. R mrs. Cochran. I say you see im not at my best im sorry. Take our time. Im nervous. Talking to any neighbors some heard about the plans for 32 avenue and some not all have the same concerns the congestions we were feeling more and more each day the fact that people have to park two or three blocks away from their homes the singlefamily home we moved out here because im sorry, i have trouble reading wants to live in a family oriented singlefamily home neighborhood me any concerns with all the above my deepest us concerns with the i should say the negative effect on the foundations of my home and lack of privacy with the extension at the back of the house and in front of the and side of house a number of years ago on the other side of my house in the back we had to im sorry we many to replace the Foundation Due to building next door we had to repair ourselves i lived in that house for 6 two years and now on a fixed income having lost any husband those homes are close to one hundred years old and built on sand and like people they need more care as and get older please consider the agencies and the stress on all three houses before you make your decision if it can, i know i cant say you cant build in our house i understand that you know i mean, thats their property with rights but stay within the confines of the house that is there now and do something about some kind of garage or something that theyll have housing this is just terrible were on 32 avenue there are no places to park and a they have street cleans and have to park in the driveways and first thing they did the man leaves you run out and everybody is trying to get their automobiles into parking i think theres some compromise it will be you know well be happy im sorry. Thats fine take your time. So i dont know if there is a question. Do you have plans unfortunately, this case that is before us we have no information from either side so what youre saying and what the permit holder is saying were blind we gong youre saying theyre building on the back were hoping the department will shed light. The only thing they sent out the original paper to us thats all i know the way is sound sound their belief two or three but they said first story and second story but the ground floor and first floor theyve taken the inside of the house. Well let the permit holder speak and maybe the department will shed light. Thank you very much. You live on which side of the building. South side. It is contiguous to the property on the south with ms. Cady. Thank you all for me well hear from the permit holder now. Good evening my name is jerold lee the new owner for the property in question 2363, 32 avenue and my wife is here tonight i did bring copies of the approved plans or permits, however, you say it can i approach and. Stop their time for a second i want to ask a question and is there a reap why you didnt provide this information to the board. I dont know. I had to provide anything i received a notice to appear and brought in paradox i dont know. I had to file anything. Hold on has the department seen any of this. Id like to personally look at thereby how many copies. I have 7 or 8 copies. Make sure a copy is given to the appellant. Everything we keep going and one to the other thank you. How many do you have. I think we need one for the department. Mr. Lee do you have a copy with you. I have it in my phone. Well share and yeah. Thank you. Well share. Sounded Like Elementary School please continue. Okay i purchased this house part because we lived near by and i bought this home for my girls to live in and like the neighbor said an older home additional hence i wanted to do some remodeling inside to make it Energy Efficient and work an electrical wiring to be safe for everybody and at the same time work on some proper plumbing and so forth for Drinking Water and everything everybody feeling in there with respect to the neighbor worried about parking i dont intend to removing parking garage space for microfilm meaning id like to park my cars inside e inside i dont like parking on the street because the vandalism and windows popped and so forth the plan is stated for us to be able to add a side door to the garage for fire escape purposes in case of a fire wed like to be able to get out what did you do opening the garage door and i dont think im out there to bother the downstairs garage im out there to plan on parking there. Pretty much the work is done inside and i dont think im really extend that much further in the back or anything pretty much replacing an old deck in the backyard to a newer safer deck with the same dimensions and i think that is pretty much it. As to how much outside work that is done there isnt going to be much change at all. Are you finished mr. Lee. It appears that the interior envelope with the appellant was talking about is not been expanding; is that correct . Yes. No. Something looked like the rear deck is becoming a little bit longer. Possibly by a little bit but it is within the i think the allowed amount that the department of building inspection would allow. So mr. Lee one way or another one question how long ago did you purpose this prompt. Almost a year ago. And then you sought to get permits after. Several months after i started requesting for permits working with an architect and the architect spent several months with the department of building inspection it was not an overthecounter permit so much thought were put in. That answers my question i even well wait for the department to hopefully fill in blanks thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the department now. Mr. Sanchez. Batter up who wants to go first . Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so i reviewed the plans that were prototyped i provided this evening i will not not the standard plans but produced by the folks not reviewed by the department but their consistent with the scope of work listed in the application as something that can be approved overthecounter the extent to a deck based on their deck 9 and a half inches above grade so extend that laterally that is not necessarily needing a firewall and there is a small lightwell in the file that seems to butt up adjacent the wall that is not allowed without neighborhood notification by given the notification it is a reasonable expansion and living space of system singlefamily dwelling. Rh1. Correct rh1. They have the full bath on the greater and a washer and dryer in the mudroom there is nothing that would give me cause for concern given the connection to the floor above. So this is no notification required for this. Thats correct given the scope of work and the only thing that may come close to on the request empire walls about being removed but it not extensive. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit holder appeal is a was a overthecounter approval it did take a few medias to get the overthecounter they walked go it through and been to the department a couple of times and thats thats okay it is considered an overthecounter youre walking through for whatever reason they actually got their approval in december and didnt come back until mark thats fine but it from a Building Code point of view again mr. Sanchez said is those are not approved drawings but matched the permit depiction the only enlargement the deck gets longer as commissioner fung pointed out that is 3 feet away from the Property Line not requiring a firewall and most of other work it looks like it is pretty standard what we call rooms permit that on the ground floor the room a couple of bedrooms and bathroom nothing to alarm me ill say a building inspector we have those permits weve seen we get alarmed when they have a bathroom they add one to every bedroom thats not the case on the ground floor they have just the one bedroom the in file the lightwell a small scope of work and on the second floor it is a remodel so theres an active complaint that was filed around the same time at appeal dbi opened the complaint that is actually opened it was in inferred the Planning Department it probably came from a neighbor and it was work ongoing possibly beyond the scope and it could possibly stand horizontally we actually got the suspension around the statute of limitations we orientated a notice of violation to say it was extend when the work tops that issue needs to be reinvited again, if the permit was upheld and the work continued ill encourage the permit holder make sure that everything is in cornerstones is so you would they got started im not sure i dont have any problem. Who is the district inspector. Inspector just retired we have a full inspector somebody out there. So i see on the permit sheet excavation done on the property. No structural draurdz no need for structural work they have to drop the ceiling but no structural on the permits i wasnt able to get the approved set theyre not in paper version it is upsetting we dont have them theyre called a vendor it will take me a couple of days im not concerned about the frontage a Building Code point of view in the neighbors have concerns. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. We can take Public Comment anyone to speak under Public Comment . Yes. Checking to see if any Public Comment on this item yes . Okay. Good evening my name is laurie live across the street from jan shes my neighbor i want to read a letter from one of the other neighbors across the street from me sharing his concerns about this project we are living with open our block it states your family lived on here since 2003 and excited to welcome new people to the neighborhood a great block with naifb people parking on this black or block is terrible for reasons we hope youll consider the parking open this block that would make an already bad situation between you do understand or occupants of a home and the onstreet parking is related to the parking question on unfortunate trend offer the past decade of homeowners paving to have additional offstreet parking the removal of garden contradicts the greenery recreation to our neighborhood we urge the board to consider it aesthetic considerations in weighing any application for Building Permit in the neighborhood as noted we welcome new neighbors on the block with open arms we want to make sure the city studies the application to address park and thaevengz were sure about etch on the block cares about but at the end of our block is 711 wire afraid of our neighbors putting in unit so 6 more people looking for Parking Spaces thats our concerns so thank you for hearing me out and thank you for your time thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Okay. Good evening, commissioners im tom and got to change what im thank god to talking about im 62yearold and lived here not park side all my life not a lot of changes its been a wonderful placed to live a wonderful mix of singlefamily units and multi commercial properties and it is a great place to live and ill will probably end up dye there for the lasts 10 years ive lived with any at thecy we wanted to support her and however we could seeing that if this is work done next to her house done properly within the confines of what should be done i was going to talk about parking but weve heard that im not an architect or engineer is seems like some of the worse fears are realized i left hand to the gentleman from the public works the red flag seeing an extra kitchen and bath or bedroom or something add in the new plans that is not shown in those plans but i can surely see and ive seen that before on the sunshine one of the old traditions of the Sunshine Park side to put in a manual unit or have people build in a building and after the permitted work is done and come in and add a kitchen and bath and these plans you can easily see the space above the upstairs kitchen is a mudroom i see easily converted into a kitchen and below a double bath upstairs another open space that can be easily converted my main concern that well, ill go back one of the concerns of the city is higher density and were in a high traffic transit corridor on terryville street id like to see a precedence of taking singlefamily units and making them into apartment houses it happened in our neighborhood and effects the quality of life in our neighborhood when i was a kid you could play in the streets now you canned park on the streets 8 oclock in the morning no parking and my other concern our friend jan is very concerned if there is reconciliation or her foundation have suffer. Your time is up. Thank you. Any other Public Comment. Okay. Seeing none well have our rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 minutes. Briefly we now have seen the plans we thank the owner for splilg them i had a question for mr. Duffy who is expertise i will stipulate you indicated mr. Duffy no structural plans or drawings indicated they might not be necessary that is one of the concerns that because those houses are old and built on sort of shallow foundations we certainly like to see some plans or drawings for what t structural effect will be and finally on the south side i should have brought a picture i apologize on this south side Property Side three or four feet of open space going back 20 or thirty feet the subject property is not built to the Property Line to the cassidy side on the north and shes enjoyed the is an sanctity of that space and now put a fire door on the side of the garage my own there is a garage ill accept the owners word but certainly dont object to do imaginations or thing for daughters i have 5 darlings and give them places to live the plans it seems to me of just become evident and i think we will ask for further review just to be careful thank you all very much. Thank you and from the permit holders additional time if you want to address the board. With respect to parking i think the front garage door will be recessed maybe several feet back so that there will be more space in the driveway actually but doesnt not take away the infrastructure Parking Spaces but allows us to put a side door next to the garage for to enter the house without entering the garage and this way more room in the sidewalks and whatnot for the pedestrians to walk before i actually purposed purchased this house i myself have been coming to this area ill say every other motioning most more the last 20 or thirty years to get a hair cut an terryville street and, yes had a hard time finding a place to park i dont know that our daughters moving into here will cause the parking congestion as blah theyre actually expecting the customers on the terryville i think would be the you know, i understand their problems i myself had to park three or four blocks away to get to the hair cut place on terryville i know that is hard to park. One singlefamily respect. Im not trying to make 24 into a multi family home by any means and i have a question when you bought the house how many people were occupying it previously. Im not sure exactly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from the department mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department just to confirm one parking space for a singlefamily dwelling and Everybody Knows setback will not be allowed anticipating to be able to park in that driveway is not code compliant so this is the project sponsors thank you to park in that area. Mr. Duffy. Commissioners joe duffy dbi just to correct the gentleman that said i mentioned about the second kitchen going in i didnt say that but about the number of bathrooms i dont see any Foundation Work ill be alarmed it is being done with the envelope the permit holder will confirm that but nothing ago the plans the they come cam to the fourth floor and at the time the permit was issued and reviewed the plans they the could have ordered them we are seeing this for the first time tonight but a few months ago an opportunity to review those plans at the dbi but just wanted to say that again thats it if you dont have anything else. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Id like to make one comment a similar situation two weeks ago but plans to alternate a street level with all speculations what may or may not happen down the line im hearing something similar from what i see those lands as described and the permit seems to be in line with. Im in agreement sometimes a lack of communication creates all kinds of conjecture youll repeat a couple of things there is a parking space here. The entry we were talking about is next to the garage of the front not at the side yard didnt go between the two building it looks like the only examination is the rear deck the building envelope looks like most of it operationally is interior modifications more on the cosmic side. So as a resident avenue sunshine for the last thirty years both of my kids were raised currently in the sunshine i see all the neighbors that signed this yet i imagine how many neighbors are in town that are renting themselves thats why the parking situation is as such i would be concerned if they went past the envelope for the folks well have several folks with 6 and 7 bath it was code compliant the fact that is one bath one within 9 original footprint of the home i dont see a problem. I concur. I would say easily solved issue would have been it would be communication with the project sponsor knocked on the doors of their neighbors and fully disclosed their plans i see no problem with these plans we see a lot of stuff here that makes you raise our eyebrows this one didnt come close. To the project sponsors or is permit holder if youre planning on living there knock on the neighbors doors and have confusion. I move to deny the appeal the permit was properly issued. Come to the podium normally youre out of order. My understanding from what mr. Functioning said no objection to the expansion in the envelope that happens. Thats not what you said it was plans dont show an expansion. Thank you. I stand corrected you said that that would be important to us for mrs. Cochran an air space between the properties if you dont build both that i wanted to clarify so you understand the plans which i saw. After our decision you might want to talk with the department in the hallway. Thanks for allowing me to speak theres a motion on the floor to uphold the permit that is of properly issues or issued but commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig okay. That that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. And with one absent so well move on to item 6 appeal west portal, llc versus the Zoning Administrator property on west portal avenue appealing the issuance of 2016 are of a notice of violation alleging planning code regarding the operating the business a professional service on the subject property without authorization well start with the appellants. Hello my name is david im here on behalf of the west portal Financial Group which is helen and peter chin and im hoping this will be go faster than others i want to begin by saying this matter really is about two inches i maybe a little bit of an exaggeration is only about one inch and a half but ill describe that more a little bit later but this project is relating relates to the west portal financial west portal commercial district the planning policies on the first story of that district encourages retail uses it allows a permit use retail uses and active use uses thats the policy and first story would not permit or require their business and professional services to require conditional use application we dont believe this is the first story we can pertain that a little bit further but first of all, business and professional services is what the business is that period of time and helen do they are originally raised this issue as to whether or not there was Financial Services and that we had a steven hearing with the deserve the Zoning Administrator and his staff have been extremely fair about this process throughout the whole thing button been restrained by a definition of what a store it is first story is so in the planning code a definition of the first story is described as the hiStory Building store with a floor level that is not more than 6 feet above grade okay this 16r theyre on is 4 feet 10 nature inches above grade. I want to to point out no definition the depiction of a second story is it is the one above the first story in the planning code so this is a problem for the Zoning Administrator to determine whether or not we need a conditional use to allow our business and professional use not allowed in the first story but allowed because a permitted use on the second story but it will require a conditional use on the first story so im making this more confusing but i should say first this is a second story circle ill show you a picture it was built in 1973 as a second Story Building and as always been a second story Building Permits taken out since 1973 referred to this building as a second Story Building no basement to the building and no other story above their business so they have to be in the second story. Except for this definition. I think the definition is not to be interpreted so nearly i think the interpretation of this provision is doesnt make sense in the connection and heres the offices right here peter and helen an art school below them and active first story as i said no basement, nothing above them on the second story i want to point out there is a history of all the permit showed this to the second Story Building and finally this provision of the code was only added sometime after 1986 thats the last code when the definition was here so this building was up and operating as a second Story Building from 1973 ill introduce you to helen she can tell you about here connection to the west portal. Good evening commissioners im helen and my husband and i own the west portal Financial Group during the first 20 years we worked a corporation and florida until 2 or 2 and a half years ago we decided it was time that we go on our own and become independent advisors and the reason to do that is really the only way to provide advise to your clients to be completely independent from any corporation so when we first start our practice those practice we worked primary from home it is in the Balboa Terrace neighborhood 3 blocks away from west portal after. Few months we outgrew our home and business and started looking for business offices the most oneself choices was west portal we shop and where we dine and where our daughter goes to goes to art school that is directly underneath us for other past 10 years and before we actually had our office in west portal we typically meet our clients with the restaurants at west portal business that is our neighborhood for the past 10 years now we fully understand we are not in the Retail Business and not in the Retail Business and therefore when we started looking for Office Locations we tried to lock for a second story availability west portal had plenty of ground floor location which we are under the impression were not a qualified business this is a better location that was a perfect fit the prior tenant had that been in the location for the past 4 years was as chiropractor and we went to as well we jumbled at the opportunity and finish your thoughts go ahead. So this location sh8g9d well, as far as a location and neighborhood i wanted to stress were Good Neighbors and Small Business owners this citation violation had been a significant. Youll have further time and your time is up. Youll have rebuttal i have a question so in working with the department how are your interaction with staff at planning and well, you want to address that question. It was extremely fair september out the notice of enforcement they thought was an issue we sat down with the process what the bits and able to determine it would be permitted by conditional use but sometime helped us through the process they cited problems was staff helpful. Yes. Both mr. Sanchez and his staff was good about the research. So mr. Sanchez even became an expert. Hes an expert on everything. Better than i could have. Thank you very much the art school is opted out by the entire level. They have 3 lower levels the building has 6 units they offered to buy the 3 lower leaves the upper unit so the main. Of the lower units. The lower yes. Let me ask my question, please how long have they been there. Our works. I my daughter has been going through 10 years. Whatever the other tenants. On the other side of the building a sushi restaurant. So. I wanted to point out the owner the building is here as well as sam the architect that did the measurement. Ive read the brief thank you. Before we hear from the Zoning Administrator i want to give an opportunity for the pertaining to speak if they want to do they want to speak no that is then well hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department to the subject property in the west portal previous to the curtain zoning mcd oneonone with an with c2 in the late 19 it challenged and introduced the zoning control as much the definition with the planning code and that it is as recorded it is basically the lowest highest floor that has a floor height of no more than 6 feet in reviewing the application we determined that the floor on which the business is located is the first story for the purposes of zoning controls those are the plans we are applying applied noting a business special service was established here without a permit and signs were not installed with it permits our enforcement 1k5k9d them and walk through understand air right and evaluating this we conduct that the use will require and krifshgs thats what the notice of violation cites the conditional use authorization hearing before the Planning Commission to establish it on the first story as noted in the planning code and thats pretty straightforward the appellant themselves admit this is less than 6 feet above grade so would not meet the definition and therefore the first story zoning controls apply certainly when you get to the vertical controls theyre on the ground floor more redistrict uses on the floor above in this case it is different this is professional Services Allowed as a right but requires conditional use authorization on the first story this is because those uses are somewhat disheartening and it future if so it a stockbroker of the special Services Allowed with conditional use but only if there are 7 floors or less within the commercial district my understanding 7 so a stockbroker a not allowed some of the uses allowed open the ground floor but not on the second story story the restaurants are limited use and not permit at all on the second story so in the future no restaurant at all at a same level and liquor store are pertaining permitted on the second level generally limited service can be allowed at the ground but not the second i think authorize a little bit more relevant ones an impact on how you view in the future i wasnt quite sure the Property Owner are aware of the limits would determine that the first story is really the second story because there will limit their future uses were asking them to go through 9 proper process and lengthen lists the use and submitted Building Permits for the design permits and some permits for those signs were not able to approve at this point, because we need to the conditional use authorization we asking they feel go though the process and have their day in court were pretty we like to work with the people and get them into compliance and file the conditional use authorization that would forestall the any penalties this is what were asking added at that point im available to answer any questions. Are there any another conditional uses. At this property. I didnt see my on file with this property not turning up recent. As the department is saying this is the first story are there any restrictions on the basement. Based on the planning code. Well, maybe i dont understand. This is the 5 or 6 the floor blowing below is it a restaurant. Any restrictions open this planning code on commercial outdoors in the basement and everything first story and below are treated the same under the planning code. So i have a question what is the chiropractor in compliance that was there before. A chiropractor would generally be a personal service that is allowed on tfirst story and second story on the second story and a conditional use on the greater. The previous business was there for a longterm. It may have predated and the west portal dont want banks or gold plays know there was ice cream place it is a awkward building. Indians thanks. I have a question i have a if it was what it was and not that way anymore so when this building was built the use if those individuals would have been there before these power points would not been in compliance but the building didnt change the rules changed and therefore, it is a noninclined use i was confused by the whole first story or the second story. So im asking for clarification so one of the reasons that your im hearing it had been advisable for a conditional use change in this because it protects the Building Owner because if we dont go ahead with this then the Building Owner is suddenly restricted from having all those others uses space and a yes. Two parts the conditional use process one gives a fair public process to allow the Planning Commission to determine whether this is necessary and desirable this ruled from a complaint so this type of use in the neighborhood and the conditional use allows the public to attend the hearing is also noted by calling this credible the first story under the code meets the definition of first story gives the Property Owner more flexibility yes for the tenant it requires a conditional use versus being as of right but for the Property Owner down the line for other uses gives them more flexibility if so a first story. So what we should be considering here is if we move forward required a conditional use process then we would be protecting some of the interests of the owner but if we dont move forward and accept the appeal then we would be protecting the we would not be placing the Current Business owner at risk. Correct the process would be easier for the current owner for the tenant because it would be allowed without conditional use process it operationally is lout requires the conditional use. Whats the long term effects the Business Owner if we uphold the appeal were precluding the use of that space in the future and inheckling the value of the appeal this will limit the future uses this has interest for the communities. Are you done commissioner. Yeah. Yeah. Who filed the classroom was it anonymous. I dont know 0 someone is here from the community i dont know who filed the complaint. Thank you thank you. Okay. Well take Public Comment now please step forward. I have a that handout that would be helpful to understand the situation and try to use. You can use the overhead. I am a merchant on the avenue im a board member. Im sorry youll have to speak into the microphone. A board member of the west portal association i was the Merchant Association organization that brought this violation complainant to light i dealt with this i think were kind of from our prospective were getting off topic that is first story and second story and talking about the issue from our presentation theres a moratorium in the code that prevents Financial Services arrest stockbrokers on the we brought to light for the city plus they didnt go through the procedural process of putting in an application and signing this is the reason we brought this to light so i dont know if this is give you am idea this is the west portal merchants district a small district this is really 4 blocks if you count the second block as a double block a sma commercial district there is over the years not many zoning controls or limits we only have one campfire control that is the i apologize you cant see it as well but there is a zoning control that would help you can read it better it states that there if there is any in excess of 7 Financial Industries theyre not allowed were at 8 which. Turn that to face you. Sorry. So just a lot of this is the semi ice cream we feel their marketplaces and if you look at the intent of the legislation to prevent banks and Financial Institutions from taking up the avenue this is a description of what a Financial Service industry is the kufrpt illustration of the map the current Financial Institutions and banks we have on the avenue right now those are not small nondescription locates if anyone has been on the avenue those are huge buildings that take uppermost of avenues what ill indicate briefly. You actually europe your time is up. Theyre marketing themselves under james theyre trading in financial products. Securities and you know that is the bottom line and theres a moratorium well ask i enforce that. Okay. Thank you. I have a question so in looking at our moratorium as banks and Insurance Companies are Title Companies concluded our your definition i can add the Title Company and leaving to banks that are over and over security. Thats the list you delayed on the overhead including the Insurance Companies. Theyre not we can add two more companies. Not the Insurance Companies you put on the. No banks. Could you show the overhead please. As far as the definition yes. The definition includes the Insurance Companies. Im being conservative were at 8 now. Im talking please. So our way over 8 and companies are entering with the interim legislation youve allowed those companies to come into west portal why not this company and the organizations is not organized we have a new organizations that is trying to enforce those mandates and unfortunately people have gotten by. If you go after those people are you going to o go over air force those people after a mandate are you picking and choosing. No. Were drawing a line in the sand. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other Public Comment. Okay. Seeing none well take our rebuttal starting with the appellant. Im sorry i dont want to take a lot of time to addressed merchant comments i want to point out this issue was discussed exhaustively with the enforcement hearing and determined that we are we do Financial Planning not take in money as bank there is some stock purposes that are done but actually in the enforcement and the notice of violation by the Zoning Administrator he pointed out those are only accessory to actually, the Financial Planning the name of Raymond James on that site was only because they started out their business and identified it with a big company that allows them to make changes weve talked about with the Zoning Administrator to change that sign and reducing it should be extensive examples how we do the west portal Financial Group name i hope not to have to discuss this i want to point out i dangerous with one thing the Zoning Administrator sanchez said whether or not the value of the property makes it better or worse for the owner if i understand what hes saying by allowing this building to be credited this used to be a second story we are allowing to to be a permitted use of a second story this allows the which i recall to have permitted use and other uses to be permitted uses by making them be more permitted use in a building that will actually increase the value of property the cost and risk of conditional uses for everything whether on that is required for this seller diminish the value the property thats where i disagree but i want to point out that once again the definition by using the Zoning Administrator definition were talking about now there is no basement theres no definitions of basement the point is hes creating a fiction to eliminate the first story and the first story is there we know that is there this is the second story nothing about it no basement to the building, a second story Building Permits permit has been taken out since 1973 now 5 feet 10 nature inches 3w4r06 an inch nature there is enough room for the permits history and from its use over time this is actually the second story. Thank you. You have a section from the original drawings 1973. I do. Building section. Yes. Lets see what it says. Sir, hand to the clerk. Thank you are those copies. Thats the original copy the only copy of the original platoons. Maybe i should have you put this on the overhead. Go ahead you can do our magic. Okay actually didnt say. Doesnt say what it is . You see this i want to show this thank you have you i did not see any designation what is first story or second story if you want to show us on the overhead and point out that out. Is there a specific designation. It on shows two floors. Okay. Thank you. This one, this one . Yes. This is one that was prepared by. Overhead please. I dont need to see mr. Wongs section he saw his drawin. Before we go to the deserve i want to see in the subject Property Owner is here to speak. No. Okay seems not well go ahead with the Zoning Administrator thank you. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department to reread the definitions from the first story the highest building with the floor level not more than 60 benioff that he center line the block that is defined so thats a planning code definition that is effective thats how we apply the planning code awhile plans that are approved they have independence of stories we dont look at but apply the codes ill anytime that 9 plans were submitted in expectant. Overheadxpectant. Overheadant. Overhead. Overheadin overhead please. They actually show my eyes with bad 5 footed 4 and 4 foot 3 there not 5 foot temple as described and as you can see that appears more than half of that lower level basement with the 16r with the lowest first story is below grade so i said this is a bit of a laurmd for lack of a better word a it is not precluding them from moving forward workplace an application in regards to the limited in the west portal nypd it does prohibit the it prevents stockbrokers not within the definition a retail use for Banking Services and products like banks and salesforce and loans and credit used and had been licensed by the state of california the public put up with not the Financial Service definition it is the business and professional Service Definition of business and professional service a limited subset of Stock Brokerage that is something an interpretation of the planning code Stock Brokerage is professional service we had to determine part of the enforcement whether or not that was a Stock Brokerage and i think we had a productive and very lengthy hearing with the appellant i felt that the Business Model could go made in such the Stock Exchange was accessory to their advising services they provide to their clients and this could be conditioned through the conditional use process so thats my position on i got a question can you explain the moratorium to me again what you just explained. Open a bank there. No. Can you open an Insurance Company. A Financial Service is prohibited not on my level. Bha would an Insurance Company fit under that definition. No a professional service which will be allowed the only professional services that are not allowed are Stock Brokerages theyre not an Insurance Company if i make the rules but here to enforce them. West portal. And im glad we get this a requirement that the conditional use had to have a press we get rid of but the conditional use on the first story. As this is a professional service. It is not necessarily to make the case the interim moratorium is for how long which that start for how long. It is permanently part of planning code and. Not interim. Not. It is commissioner bridges applies to the entire district applicable for a Stock Exchange may apply for conditional use if nobrainer 7 financial uses or Stock Brokerages within the district there are more Financial Services of 7 Stock Brokerages shall not be permitted ill say thats early 2000 but cant give a certain date. But the briefs indicate that you dont consider this Business Model to be a Financial Service you consider it to be a financial professional service. Business and professional service. Correct. Correct thats the only issue that we appreciate the patience of the appellant and methodology explaining their business and how they operate i felt that it would get to a point where that was not primarily Stock Brokerage that was accessory to the use because they were mostly doing Financial Advising not a professional service not a bank a stroorj is prohibited but monthly not doing stock training. Lemon my last question to you asking your opinion of this this building and type of design was intend to decrease a commercial space by you know sort of wedging this floor halfway so that perhaps rent both floors to some commercial use would then if based on your determination if this was the first story and the basement was can be used for anything similar to the first story potentially then more doesnt even used by for a restaurant. Yes. This is a postponing but the bars and rankle would be conditional uses. Im saying it could respect. It could. Versus our i guess our sort of traditional approach those kinds of uses only at the lowest lever or first story. They could i mean the planning code was drafted with the specific threshold in there weve had didnt come up this often one case that was before us a few years ago for the brickyard on union street they were 5 feet as well we do apply the rules of the law and dont take those as appropriate in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. I dont know. Ive been going interest for 40 years or the west side never considered it the first story or second story personally. Common sense tells me and my gut tells me. Ill go either way. If you want to clarify the situation you deny the appeal and go through the proper process and then legally it is that conditional use is either approved or not and satisfied for forever if by the uphold the appeal and i still think this is ambiguity and the letter of the law is not being recognized so i would agree with that in general, i guess the point that trvp for me by accepting this determination that means that we would potential down the line be allowing a much more than that doesnt even use from what i think as a second floor. Im with commissioner swig. This is probably going to be continued. Someone want to make a motion. A motion to deny the appeal on the basis that it should be a proper conditional use. So, so is this error in abuse of the standard whether they erred or used their discretion you dont find find error. Abusive. Okay. So we have a motion if commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold did notice of violation pending on the basis of the Zoning Administrator didnt error or abuse his discretion commissioner fung no. And commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda. No okay commissioner wilson is absent a vote of 2 to two, that months ago fails and absent any other motion then matter would be the Zoning Administrator decision will be uphold by operation of law. Actually well take a 10 minute break. Finefine. Welcome back to the wednesday, may 11, 2016, meeting of the San Francisco General Hospital we are on item no. 7 on Market Street appealing the observance of a letter of determination whether the planning code distinguishes between guest beds in the hotel on Market Street and well start with the appellant. Youre having too much fun sue. Sue hester attorney for local 2 what is the appealed here is Zoning Administrator determination on 1095 Market Street it was trauftd in 2010 a conversion into office space on Market Street to hostile only extensive hearing on this case at the Planning Commission was in 2010 and 2010 they came to the commission to get a cu for a hotel hotel hostile hostile the same thing as a hotel didnt have to come to the commission to get prevail for conversion of an office use to do upgrading it but once they get a hotel hostile had to come 303 g of the planning code is hostile hotel question we the requirements were added of 20 years requires two things one the market demands a hostile not observed to hear the second thing is Employment Conditions how are the people going to be hired to work in a hotel and what are the measures that will be taken to assure the people get theyre working there have housing, transit, childcare and other things oh, would you put this down o oh, this is a thirty 3 provision whoops with we blocking the thing here. So thirty 3 makes those provisions were getting it. And the requirements for market displaced is c and the may not be demand for housing and employment is a and b so in the studies that was done for the Planning Commission conform to requirement c they did a Hotel Market Study were not disputing that we are disputing the first two provisions on 303 g which is employment the only analysis of employment that was done in 2010 was larkin street only testimony at the hearing when it came to the hearing the Planning Commission that was extensive testimony how larkin street will provide interest to work with the employment people at the hostile larkin street is were a couple hundred feet of 1095 Market Street and so the commission was focused on the employees that will good for the hostile two conditioners for the commission was a it was hostile and b it will have larkin street as an additional to the employment and c there were very concerned about the texture of the building were not disputing the architect but the employment the second issue we raised and the hostile were talking about a condition in 309 not cu but downtown plan that says there is certain conditions you at 309 appeals ive been here 75 not 19 howard youve been here on 309 appeals the 309 appeals are for a whole list of things in the planning code one of them is two this and the threshold for two of us is 200 rooms and when you get a room count but have a key count the Planning Department has chosen to interpret the hotels and interpret the conditions as were only dealing with heads own beds and from the condition c studies analyzed the appropriate number of people then the demand for those people the room count is irrelevant the Planning Commission approved 94 rooms thats the standard in hotels and office so were asking this commission to over turn the department the Zoning Administrator. In this director weve got a sister union in new york that represents the hotel if in city and also were completely difference in the utilization from hotels evidenced by the reliance on Market Street to stop the project looking like street it housed nearby theyll be on using this interning to springboard into the hostile entry the hotel advertises itself quoted everything youll expect from a luxury hotel they apply bell positions and checking systems and a few Housekeeping Department and have linens deliveries and guest perseverance are different than hotels the most important challenge that is not just me that is a former general manager of the Fairmont Hotel made that case good and thats exactly why section 303 was put in temple years ago because providing the Workforce Housing to the industry a part of Planning Commission jurisdiction the commission cant carried out the 303 g without understanding theyre approving a 94 room hostile arrest 200 room hotel we doable it thank you. Thank you. Well hear in the attorney for the permit holder. Lets fin the attorney for the permit holder. Letrin the attorney for the permit holder. Letoin the attorney for the permit holder. Letmin the attorney for the permit holder. Lets n the attorney for the permit holder. Let the attorney for the permit holder. Lets see. Good evening. Im jim abrams council to 1095 Market Street to conservative the Office Building on 1011095 with a roof deck and hotel the principal or project has no parking one of the few preearthquake buildings the project has a rehabilitation with a little aside from the issue of this project in 2015 the project is currently under construction the appeal whether or not the Zoning Administrator has misused his discretion in determining whether or not the plans and site permit are in conformity with the conditional use authorization hes determined that the Square Footage the hotel is the same and it is in fact the park is the same retail use and the number of rooms has changed but the Hotel Occupancy has not the appellant 345kz several arrangements that are not supported bids law the planning code requires a new conditional use authorization because the number of rooms has changed in the hotel and the planning code requires a kruvengsz skrufks for a hotel use not as a specific number of rooms under things under the planning code based their sizes the hotel is not one of the uses only an approval for a hotel use or not second the planning code doesnt require a conditional use authorization for different classes of hotel not a separate conditional use authorization for a budget or luxury hotel only for hotel use when the board of supervisors and the Planning Commission worries about to regulate the characterizations of a use 25e do so by adopting the laws within the planning code requires a new conditional use authorization when a specific building has not changed tenants this is because the economic characters that have that tenants are deemed that the board of supervisors to be important in determining whether or not . Incompatible sxabl with the neighborhood from a gap to a walgreens for example, no such requirement it is a conditional use authorization for a hotel use broadly speaking i know this is underscored a Hotel Operator a upgrade the hotel with Building Permit and relies oils on the conditional use authorization and the hotel and the nature of the hotel can change nogo expectation a reasonable extension based on the planning code the operator will be the same and subsequent changes will require a new conditional use authorization it is simply not provide in the code through we dont believe this is resident the appellant a miss character the proposed drufbs that was described as a hotel hostile the reason the shorthand for the projects has shared and private rooms in the market study and in alu all the documents clearly indicates a boutique hybrid models that procreates as a Boutique Hotel like highclass finishes and be the hotel had been competing with similar hotels the program was not a typical hostile also involved in the vocation of the building is quite expensive no parking provided in the current proposal has those micro romance similar in concept their intended to be affordable to younger travels that doesnt need parking or traditionally hotels so overall the appellant is asking the planning code if exist exist i wanted to address the employment characterize it is important to note that the conditional use authorization references not only larkin street. References the hotel transient tax and the job linkage fee with the impact fee and the childcare fee and none of the fees are upgraded to reflect the dpapd tor for childcare and the larkin project is still stone the table the project manager is talking to larkin and providing employment at the hotel theyre in discussions with looking like street is it so important to note if looking like is no the condition of approval in the conditional use authorization the Planning Commission if include that has a condition of approval and therefore it is not binding but it is not a legally binding aspect the conditional use authorization attorneyclient. Thank you. Counselor with you say that is under construction what do you mean by that. So the project is under construction and relies on the structure it has been issued to the site permit that the contractors is at property demolition as occurred to the building and structural work being done. So you have your other packages in for review thats a good question yes, he do. Thank you. Thank you okay mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so the subject property is located workplace the c3 downtown Zoning District and parking 61 thousand feet e square feet the last use was office space they so you get to convert from office space to hospital 2i8 with the 4 rooms and one hundred plus beds sought an exception with the authorization and in 2014 submitted and Building Permit application the property changed hands and a new person looking to develop the project and so you cant to rise it with 200 plus beds and rooms retail use the bed count down by half basically during the review of the permit application that was a request as to whether or not it was in conformity with the previous decision and in those decisions it contains language the Zoning Administrator may modify or allow modification for the plan without any modification that is deemed to be significant go back to say Planning Commission for review ill say initially i heard from the 4 rooms to over 200 it was a significant intense indication but reviewing the application thoroughly saw the bed count was reduced and not finds that to be a significant change to the project as the project sponsor had on the overhead the plans of the building an existing building the existing of this is staying the same the configuration of the hotel is different not enabling the capacity but reducing the capacity of the hotel but changing the configuration and its previous iteration it is described in all the material a highend hostile my understanding the hotel go up will be occupying this building with accommodations in regards to issues raised by the appellant by the proper review of the project and stands their precedence for reviewing the project busy hotel rooms that didnt exist in some parts of code but in the c3 in regulations regarding the numbers of room and the impact fees are based on Square Footage and parking in 2030 based on Square Footage and zoning generally by the type of same thing use and the tour because it has the two loading bus requirement under the planning code in section one hundred 50 governs the partnering and loading requirements it states when those requirements are actually requiredtolysis theyre only required under the major additions a large alteration or increases the number of onstreet parking and getting to the loading spaces, a be a number of loading space by 15 percent the office space had a loading requirement not saved we count that is a deficit to Carry Forward a conservation to the hotel didnt require the state loading but trirgdz the tougher bus a wash no density of loading that loading requirement will not be required here i believe the permit holder has prepared a good argument those are most of points i want to race im available to answer any questions that the board has. So with regards to the loading piece it did the office the hotels have to have garbage in and out you know and im assume that the Office Building p had garbage in and out the garbage the receipt of supplies and the and so can you clarify the other thing about the a little bit more classification maybe repeat yourself so i can get clear on loading and the tour bus situation. Certainly has noted that believe was built in the prequake so before we had any parking or loading requirement before a planning code and when the onstreet parking commercial loading requirements those requirements became effective building was grandfathered in no requirement under the that code that was required to provider one not provided as a derivative to Carry Forward under the code you only need to provide parking when your rehabilitating the building in the cased of a major addition major addition is defined as an increased density by a requirement more than 15 percent this is a wash that remains at one not an onstreet parking freeloading stays in this case thats not required but it is perspired for the number of rooms that the tour bus is required to so there is a wash here so well say that is it so it is a major addition and the parking requirement dont need to be satisfied in this case. Timing wise you indicated that the change occurred in 2014 what month. So the Building Permit application was submitted looks like in february 4th of 2014. Maybe laboratory maybe september of the 2014 a Building Permit Building Permit application and during the course that have permit review where the scope of work was established we approved is that of the issued on november 17th of last year the appellant did tend to file an appeal but under the charter appealed the Building Permit is not allowed because it was issued pursuant to a conditional use authorization to the board rejected that appeal did appellant so you get the letter of determination for me regarding our credits that was in conform with the conditional use authorization so work is going on up to 5 or 6 months on the building. Okay. But you mean it couldnt have been appealed here but appealed by the periphery. No the appeal to the board of supervisors was needed to be taken within thirty days. On the conditional use itself. This is unfortunate this is the chart often large projects that are changed posting hearing and a provision that does allow us to administratively provide those changes thats the determination in this case. Thank you. Thank you you well Public Comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak excellent e excellent please step forward. Thank you director goldstein and honorable commissioners im here to read into the record and read a statement to be prepared for this hearing regarding the appeal number i was Vice President christine an into custody we approved the director huey conditional use for a hostile we were required to approve the 1095 Market Street office space it required the conditional use for hospital tills and hotels we had of the Grant Building didnt require conditional use approval the presentation to the Police Station back in october of the 2010 on 1095 Market Street by tim frye the director in charge of the presentation preservation the only testimony was a presentation by larkin services who adding weighed with the then Building Owner the larkin will be training to work not Hospitality Industry both of us were familiar with the 1095 Market Street this i agreed with president miguel it make sense and serves young travels are travelers and use transit i made the motion to approve a 94 room hostile hotel it is for the project was hostile not a highend hotel working with larkin street to provide training and employment working with the conditional use we the hostile marketed study and our market planning was the on other thing provided on the 303 g requirements no information how the hospital tills employment no over 3200 room hotel was mentioned onramp a 94 hostile and christine was the president of the Planning Commission on october 2010 to be submitted to you tonight thanks ill give this is to the clerk. Thank you. Any other Public Comment seeing none, well have our rebuttal ms. Hester. Sue hester i wanted to remind you that there is requirements in the planning code for hotels and hospital tills there is not a word in any of these submissions to the Planning Commission and in 9 to 5 or today that deals at all with Employment Requirements theres nothing in the record because ive been through the record stephen and the Planning Commission made a decision based on what was before them and they waited made a decision to approve the hostile hotel based on the data they were presented that was zero except for the testimony on larkin street in the project changes that didnt have any evidence of larkin street involvement that mutes out the entirety of 3023 g one and two hotels are you get a key you paid for it i go to a hostile you get a key to the room and a bed not a key that is executive of executive to say the thirty days appeal period was a joke was because the last time this is in commission in november of 2013 it changed it in 2014 when they filed a permit and the Planning Department didnt do anything they didnt say it is changed they didnt say that was an analysis of what the requirements were for a space for a hotel local 2 is here to take any questions questions about a hostile and Hotel Operations wisconsin you need are wraufrd if we allow this kind of a change is this a different operation and employment in the way the hotel operates a hostile is not a hotel and theres no thought process in the Planning Department saying how they came up with the 200 and 3 room hotel when the 7 room hostile was approved nothing, nothing in the files. Thank you. Ms. Hester. Oh. Two questions. Yes. What is one is when the site permit was discussed with the permit that site permit reflected a change from the 4 rooms. They never discuss 2. Were not aware of 3. No public discussion only between carli grove and the Zoning Administrator. The second question is as youre well aware when the charter changed and therefore land use decisions that required a conditional use bypasses this board. A lot of the issues youve brought up were subject matters at the conditional use how do you see then is ability of this board to then act upon that sort of gray gray area and the sdrvr determination appealed to us but the underlying basis of the issue is not. The poor Zoning Administrator has to take the fall he said determination is asked for you can appeal it thats what i did im telling me the Zoning Administrator determination that 97 rooms is 200 and 3 rooms and his determination is this cyber outlet of two pages with the loading requirements he didnt deal with the Employment Conditions the room the requirement of the 303 g entitlement nothing in here nothing that deals with the change to deal with employment and to deal with how hotels are handled. I just bit my thing it is 303 g. Thank you. Hear from the permit holders attorney many ann rams. Just responding the 303 g beyond the larkin street dealt with a reference to the transit occupancy tax and the Development Fee the jobs housing that linkage and the childcare those employment were dealt with in 9 explicit finding the Planning Commission motion the Planning Commission didnt chose to have a condition of approval to employ folks on looking Like Services this is likely a wise decision larkin can change the program or seize to operate larkin street can refuse to have a program in the future i think that the overall issue is that the appellant is expanding a level of planning code that didnt exist and better to petition the board of supervisors to men, women, and children amend the planning code to require the hotel specific economic characteristics be the regulated and a certain conditional use authorization is required in the characteristics of the hotel change after approval the requirement that simply didnt exist with the approval of the hotel with the conditional use authorization and once thats done the Hotel Operator can which was a number of things can happen my fear from the appeal is upheld with this will be derrick e department of Emergency Services that conditional use authorizations will be republicans sent in the future by permitted by the use of conditional use authorization. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department just briefly in preponderance o response on the letter of determination under the section im obligated to respond to any requests for the applicability of the planning code i responded to the appellants letter it is the request letter the United States is exhibit 9 bards awards to the tour bus it is not in the letter of determination he apologize perhaps im not thorough enough but responded the best he could to the request and thats what you say before you as the letter of determination with the Building Permit was issued a underway for 6 months or so thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Can you expand a little bit on you and our staffs analysis that led you then your analysis in terms of the metrics you looked at besides the bed counts. That led you to then to indicate this feels no change in occupancy or use. I guess i mean give those are land use regulations weeks ago implementing we look at what the land use impacts it is primarily the occupancy so this was the primary factor the density of the use being the number of beds and dont regulate the operator and so no permit other than to change the sign if you im sorry im bad with hotels before you under the hyatt well pick the hyatt there could be a big change in the overall character of the use but not requiring a permit because the use this is primary the size and the number of beds the number of rooms is a factor but in this case, the number of rooms and calculating and have a seat that versus the number of beds let me expand that question to give you an idea im looking for information did you look at average occupant count. In terms of the hotel cheap and what is likely occupant load. What it was before. Walgreens well, we look at the number of beds are you saying in terms of which was may have a hire occupancy it could be that a hostile per room will have maybe three or four beds but would only be perhaps one or two people sometimes versus you have hotel rooms then the same modules that would have encompassed 4 beds two rooms then lets say 3 rooms is equivalent in area to have this 200 room hotel is equivalent in area modules you, however, you want to describe them is equivalent in an area to one room in the hostile is the occupant of the 3 rooms different than the one hostile room. I think i understand the question certainly that kind of information could be relevant and important but based on the information that we had the descriptions was more than just a number on a paper our staff had discussions with the applicant and felt it was comparable but the drauveng is half the number of beds the same Square Footage but half the number of beds and considering those those factors not a significant which was for the approval. Thank you but thank you mr. Sanchez. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. So i kind of spent about 35 years of my adult life in the Hotel Business and as i was approaching this trying to figure out how as ive been a consulted additional owner and operator in everything so i looked at a it very analytically and the fundamental thing whether that is a hostile are hotel it is an overnight facility so whether that is the luxury are the economy it is an overnight facility is i found myself looking at that advertised an officer night stay facility whether a hostile or a hotel then he looked at the size 61 thousand square feet and the number of rooms 200 and 3 rooms if so if this were a moderate mid scale hotel and commissioner fung and i were 1re7 it and building it we would is is where an altercation of 6 hundred square feet per guest room including public spaces the math it come down to three hundred square feet per module including public spaces so that means those rooms are real smallest like real small and so as far as the how this hotel would be positions because of the simply the size the super economy level approaches the hostile the definition the 200 and 3 rooms occupy beds and the hostile has smaller are smaller amount of rooms occupying multiple beds circling around to my original thought which is an overnight stay facility regardless if so this a hostile or hotel and thats all im saying on the subject that leads me to denying the appeal it really the use isnt hadnt changed, in fact, not deviated from a hostile level as far as employment goes i would hope that the operators of that hotel would look to the immediate neighborhood including larkin use center and including the general 3 to 4 block radius of that hotel which includes the tenderloin and which includes a lot of underserved san franciscans and promote the opportunity of employing those san franciscans in that hotel ill think that is beneficial to the neighborhood as far as jobs and the economic froth in the neighborhood to have that facility there whether or not that is a hostile or a hotel as proposed. Thank you. Commissioner swig that was very good input for me. You know rick, you and i know that certain metrics occurs in hotel when i looked at this the area per room doesnt come close to what some of the words that they eye when they talk about luxury. Luxury. You know when youre talking about and you dont necessarily have to go with the larger lines you know but you know they normally use anywhere from the mode you will three hundred and three hundred and 70 square foot by itself. Exactly. When you look at this these micro rooms they call it for some reason im not sure i approve it but is that the intent of use has not to be greater and dwriven by the fact you have got more cost build in a hostile with a floor plan has one bathroom and fixtures have very expensive in construction especially hotels so you windup then with a lot more rooms which the interior construction and the fixtures cost a lot more the intensity of use has to be greater. Im not sure i follow that im not sure what consequence did to this decision would it could thought to build or run the hotel i i mean, i understand your. Im relating that to scotts determination no change in the use basically. I dont quite make the linkage but im inclined with commissioner swig to deny the appeal. That is commissioner swig was in the hotel industry. This light we can go with the hotel person. Ill deny the appeal based on that the approved use is not different from. The air abuse Zoning Administrator didnt error in abuse. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal on the basis that the Zoning Administrator did not error or abuse his discretion commissioner fung no commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda. Okay. And one absent so that months ago carries with a vote of 3 to one and theres no further business before this board. Sorry thank
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.