tv Board of Appeals SFGTV January 28, 2022 4:00pm-8:01pm PST
i didn't see you. at the controls, the board's legal assistant, [indiscernible] and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by several people presenting. corey teague, the zoning administrator, and tina chan, the deputy zoning administrator, chris buck, san francisco department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turnoff all cell phones or electronic devices so they do not disturb the proceedings. the proceedings are as follows. each party is given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes to present their rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated to the parties are given to three minutes for
public comment unless determined otherwise by the board. if you have a question about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail board staff as firstname.lastname@example.org. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is streaming and broadcasting this meeting live and will allow public hearing for each hearing on the agenda. to watch the meeting live on
t.v., go to cable channel 26, and the meeting will be rebroadcast on fridays. public comment can be provided two days. you can go to the meeting by computer using the zoom link or call 669-900-6833, and enter the webinar i.d. 840-7237-0675. to block your number, dial star, seven before you dial your number. you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn.
our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note there is a delay between live proceedings and what is broadcast and live proceedings on the t.v. if any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability or technical accommodation, send an e-mailing to board of appeals at s -- to email@example.com. now, we will swear parties who will testify or speak. if you wish to testify before the board and have the board give your testimoniestary weight, please raise your right hand and say i do to swear or
affirm. okay. do you answer or affirm that what you are about to say will be the truth and the whole truth? okay. we will move onto general public comment. commissioner lopez is present. >> president honda: vice president swig is also here. >> clerk: okay. we're moving onto item 1, general public comment. this is for anyone who would like to speak to a matter on -- in the board's jurisdiction but is not on the calendar. is there anyone who would like to speak on an item that is not in the board's jurisdiction? okay. i do not see any hands raised, so we'll move onto item 2,
elections of officers. are there any members of the board of who like to nominate another member of the board? >> president honda: i would like to nominate vice president swig to the office of president. >> clerk: is there any other nominees? let me ask, vice president swig, are you willing to serve as president? >> commissioner swig: yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. seeing no other comment on the item to nominate vice president swig to the office of president -- [roll call]
>> clerk: all right. so that motion carries 5-0, and we will now move onto the office of the vice president. >> commissioner swig: yes, i would like to nominate commissioner ann lazarus to the position of vice president, please. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on the motion to nominate commissioner ann lazarus to the position of vice president? seeing none, on the motion to nominate commissioner ann lazarus to the position of vice president --
[roll call] >> clerk: okay. and that motion passes. so we will now move onto item number 3, commissioner comments and questions. >> president honda: first of all, i'd like to congratulate a former board of appeals member, rachel tanner, as she has just been forwarded to the presidency of the planning commission. also, i'd like to wish everybody a happy chinese new year. year of the tiger, and health, happiness, and prosperity to
darryl? i'm sorry. we're not having discussion right now. all right. so mikal, are you here to provide consider consider what is your public comment, please. go ahead. >> i'm curious why darryl honda is stepping down. >> clerk: this is part of the rules, and this is not a question-answer time. every year, the officers change, so this is part of our regular process. >> okay. >> commissioner honda: so just to clarify, this is my second term as process. this body, unlike other bodies, we rotate, and we think that it's fair that everyone get equal pain as president and vice president. >> clerk: okay. so is there any other public
comment on this item? we're at commissioner comments and questions. okay. miss stellbridge, please go ahead. >> thank you. am i unmuted? >> clerk: yes. >> yes. so i wanted to say, years ago, it seems like a long time ago, on the van ness subject, an lazarus was really crucial for me. i was ready to give up. i was really feeling really depressed, and she made a couple of comments to me in a diplomatic way that no one ever has. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, this matter is
before you for possible adoption and discussion. [indiscernible]. >> president swig: i will be glad to make that motion. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from president swig to adopt the minutes. is there is there any public comment on that motion? okay. i don't see any public comment, so on that motio -- [roll call]
>> clerk: and that motion carries, 5-0, and the minutes are adopted. so we are now moving on item number 5, which is appeal 21-112, corinna lee versus the planning commission, appealing the issuance on october 21, 2021, to paramount estate, l.l.c., of a section 328 home s.f. project. adopting findings relating to a home s.f. project authorization pursuant to planning code sections 206.3 and 328 to allow
zoning modifications from rear yard and dwelling unit exposure requirements of planning sections 134 and 140 respectively, and construct a five story over basement, 45'9" tall residential building with 13 dwelling units. this is pursuant to record number 2019-012968-ahb. we will hear first from the appellants, miss lee. >> okay. i would like to share my screen. >> clerk: we won't start your time until you get set. >> good afternoon,
commissioners. my name is corinna. i was born and raised on corbett avenue, and today, i speak on behalf of a diverse and live long group of residents who live and have grownup in our city. this 13-unit project is out of context for the highly constrained narrow project site, and the project is led by a developer who hasn't listened to the needs of the community and his history of corruption and collusion calls into the safety of the proposed project. [indiscernible] situated on top of a hill with no nearby services. the nearest grocery store, whole foods, is a mile away, 25
minutes away, with an elevation change of 700 feet. you'll rarely see bike riders in the neighborhood because of the windy roads and the change in elevation. the proposed project clearly abuses home s.f. to build extra height, tripling the density and more than doubling the sponsor's revenue. how is this creating a family friendly environment for 13 new families? our concern is not just for our current neighbors by our future neighbors. we want them to join our community and live in a building that fits in the
neighborhood. the property plan is to build this five-story building halfway up a hill without any direct road access, sandwiched between two buildings. the site is narrow. our means of entry and exit will be highly overburdened. they'll likely be blocking in various disabled residents. how can they build on this scale given the only access is on 23 street? home s.f. is designed to incentivize more family friendly projects in low-income
housing. the project proposed 13 uses, with a 325% increase in density. the below market rates should be 25% of the project. that's only four out of 13 units. some units are only 300 square feet, the size of a large bedroom. what is more revealing is that mr. fung's got a voting history is he refused to support building projects in his own backyard in millbrae but wants to put an incredibly disruptive
quality of life and to minute mice the displacement of san francisco residents. i'm speaking today on behalf of my neighbors, largely elderly neighbors who have lives here since before i was born and advocating for the quality of life of my current and future neighbors. we request that home s.f. not be qualified for this development, or if it does, there will be a 25% set back from argent alley, and the main set back should be on argent alley, not 23 street. the developer has not worked with the surrounding neighbors to create a design that benefits us all. we ask the board of appeals to ensure that the voices of the
community are heard. thank you for your time. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from ryan patterson, the attorney for the determination holder. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> good evening, commissioners. this is ryan patterson, the determination holder in this appeal. >> clerk: we can pause your time as you get set up. >> okay.
commissioners, this is a residential 13 unit housing project on a vacant lot. project reserves 25% of the units as below market rate, which is double the typical housing inclusion requirements, and it provides a unique project to low-income individuals and working families. the project represents a significant opportunity to demonstrates the city's commitment to diversity, ininclusiveness, and equity in housing, and to meet the goals of the federal furthering fair housing law. the project does not remove any existing residential units, which means every one of the residential units should be prepared. the appellant's main contention
is that the home s.f. program is only applicable within the neighborhood district. this is incorrect. the planning code highlighted here states that a housing project may be located in any district not designated rh-1 or rh-2. in all respects, the project meets or exceeds the home s.f. requirements, and that is the very nary basis for any peal of the home s.f. authorization. the project reserves 25% of the units as affordable, double the
typical inclusionary requirements. 61% of the bedrooms are in multibedroom units, well above the 50% home s.f. requirement. all the units exceed the minimum dwelling size. the entire project is affordable by design, includes ecofriendly design elements, and is ready for solar. i'll now turn it over to my colleague [indiscernible]. >> commissioners, to be clear, there is no such requirement for home s.f. projects. regardless, the appellant is factually incorrect. the m.t.c.'s project priority
map demonstrates that nearly the entire city is within a transsit prioritiar. -- transit priority area. the code does not require home s.f. projects to be within a transit priority area or adjacent to dedicated bike routes, although this project would meet such a requirement if there were one. the project is a model for transit first housing, provides 13 bike parking spaces, and does not include vehicular parking. the appellant suggests that on-line parking is a project
flaw rather than a benefit. the city has long discouraged private vehicle use and completely eliminated all parking lots citywide, and this project directly aligns with those goals. the planning code recognizes that the home s.f. projects will need to be largest in height and mass to surrounding buildings to meet the project's affordable housing goals. this project reserves 25% of the units as affordable and is therefore entitled to certain zoning modifications. the sponsor held several community meetings to build a project that is sensitive to community concerns, including reducing the height 10 feet below what the home s.f. program allows, provided a generous 25-foot set back on the fifth floor, and eliminated
an elevator penthouse all to reduce massing. the project sponsor has gone to great lengths to reduce the mapping of the project while still keeping to the design. there is no evidence whatsoever that the project does not meet any building code or safety requirement, and in any event, structural and engineering design will be completed by licensed professionals and reviewed by d.b.i. for compliant with all city requirements at the appropriate time. finally, as a coat compliant housing development project, this project is governed by the how's being accountability act, h.a.a. pursuant to the h.a.a., the
city may only disapprove the project if there would be an unforeseeable public health or safety impact. therefore, the h.a.a. requires the project to be approved at the density proposed, and no -- >> operator: 30 seconds. >> in sum, the project meets or exceeds all home s.f. and planning code requirements and provides an opportunity to provide 13 new units for working families in a neighborhood that is in need of family housing. we respectfully request the board deny the appeal and
uphold the project. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from president swig? >> president swig: there was a mention of community meetings, and full disclosure and transparency to the community. yet, the appellant seems to have a different view. can you document for us and describe the number of community meetings, their dates, and their level of attendance, please? >> happy to do that. i couldn't do it off the top of my head, but i'll ask if either of my colleagues happens to have that at hand or otherwise we'll try to have that ready for you during our rebuttal period. >> president swig: okay. and if you make a statement like that, you've got to back it up with substance. >> right. we'll get that for you.
>> okay. thank you. >> clerk: om. we'll now hear from the planning department. deputy zoning administrator, tina tan. >> good evening, commissioners. tina tan, deputy zoning administrator. the lot fronts on 23 street, which is an unimproved public right-of-way, as well as argent alley. while there was one single-family home on this property, the structure has since been demolished.
new units will also have access at the rear on argent alley, which will provide a pedestrians connection between market street and corbett avenue. under the home s.f. program, the project is receiving a number of bonuses, including extra dwelling units, an additional story of height, and additional dwelling units. in addition, the project is proposing to construct three affordable dwelling units where
none would be required under the base zoning, a building height of 45' 9'', a reduced rear yard of 25' 9'', and according to the appellant, the project is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. they claim that the project is too dense, to tall. despite the appellant's claim, there were a total of 18 home
s.f. projects since the adoption of the program in 2020, and five of them are in the r residential district. while such a site is near public transit, there's the 37 corbett bus and the l taraval site. however, i want to thank them for the need to update our website, the introduction in our web -- information in our website has been updated and it's allowed in district locations in the city and directs the reader to project specific criteria. a public hearing for the project was required. on october 21, 2021, the planning commission heard comments in support and opposition tot project.
neighbors voiced their concerns about on street impact, and in the end, the planning commission voted 4-2, with commissioner moor and imperial voting no, in adopting motion 21-210 to adopt the project. the design of 4512 23 street has been carefully reviewed and determined to be compatible with the immediately neighborhood. design considerations have been made, including setting back this historic 25 feet from the building wall, reducing the height of the roof parapet, and eliminating the elevator
penthouse. in conclusion, the project meets the requirements. in exchange for more height, 5'9", a reduction in rear yard, and six dwelling units who reduce exposure. there will be 13 new dwelling units on the vacant parcel, three of which will be below market rate for the life of the building. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president swig and then from vice president lazarus. and you're on mute, president swig. >> president swig: can you let vice president lazarus go head next? i'm still formulating my question. >> vice president lazarus: sure. housing accountability act. my tam, could you address that and whether it falls under the provisions of that, please?
>> the -- are you asking about the project mix or the affordability of that? >> well, i think if the project meets that criteria, there's some constraints on what this can and cannot do with the project. >> this project does meet all of the project specific criterias under the home s.f. program. it's in the appropriate zoning. it's providing code complying design. it's providing the required 25% affordable units on-site. >> vice president lazarus:
okay. i guess the question is, then, does it trigger the act which would then affect the project? >> you know what? i'm not sure about that. i would defer to the project. >> clerk: okay. thank you very much. president swig? >> president swig: you know, as i looked through this project, i was impressed and then questioned why i was impressed. this project fits into a category, it seems, if it can be built, that it can be built and then raised the question which is why the appellant
they've done very competent job analyzing what can be done, and it's fully code compliant, and i don't any problems with it. and then, i look at this project and this land, i say gosh, they've just dropped this project onto this little slot of land. so how does planning sort out or do you at all sort out because there's a need -- clearly, there's a need, and it
can be built, according to all the -- the legal statutes, etc., and there's a qualified developer building it. but when do you actually look at it from 1,000 feet up and say, really, should this project, should this project be built? is this good planning? which i think is the root of the appeal. can you comment on that? >> thank you for the question. this lot had a building on it prior. there were other developments in the immediate vicinity, and we followed the developments of the planning code in the home s.f. program one by one, and we
arrived to the decision that this project met all these standards, and that is the decision for the project. >> president swig: i agree, but this is what's making me stumble a bit as i look at this project. skillful developer, found available land, found a way to design a building on it, designed that building to check off all the boxes that you just confirmed. everything's perfect, really, except should this -- is it good planning to build this project on this site? i think this is the root of the question of the appellant? and i'm asking this question on the benefit of the appellant, because our job is to uphold the statutes, and we can't makeup our own just because we
want to. i want the public to understand that you think you're making a good planning decision, not a decision that has been made on fulfilling the goals of home s.f., not a decision that's been made of checking off the boxes that makes sure that this is completely code compliant, but this is really good planning, and this building really belongs on this site on this neighborhood. this is what i would like you to address for me if you would, please? >> thank you. we believe so. under the base zone, the property is allowed to have up to four dwelling units. with the housing density bonus, we're getting four additional. we are getting more housing that otherwise would be allowed under the base zoning, and
we're getting three affordable units. that would be deemed part of our housing -- mayor's office of housing and community development. when you look at the lot, you might think this is a lot, but when you look at the rest of the lot, you see other high density apartment buildings. sure, there's some duplexes nearby, but there's a lot of eight units. i think there's one that's 25 units on the same block, and so that's when we review projects in those contexts through those lenses, we believe this is an appropriate project to do on the site. i don't know whether that answers all your questions or
not, but we believe that's how it basically approaches your review. if it's lacking all of these amenities and requirements for planning to make something viable for the people that lived there, we might say, you know what? we want housing, but this is not going to work. >> president swig: so there's a developer that's going to fulfill that need. yes, it might be a little more
dense than would normally be placed there because you get special incentives because of participating in the home s.f. game, but with those incentives, with those changes, that tension between the right building and the other needs of the city and the legal statutes which exist make this building an appropriate planning decision. is that what i'm trying to interpret from your message? >> i believe so. there's a number of things that are able to property. state density housing bonus is another one, and that is something that would allow increasing housing units on the property, but may not give us
other things, like increased housing space and rear yards. it fits pretty much the intent and the objections that i outlined in home s.f., and that's why we're supporting the project tonight. >> president swig: okay. i don't mean -- i'm not trying to be argumentative or dismiss your point of view, i'm trying to get a point of view so the neighbors know exactly what those tension points are that you have to consider when you are going thumbs up or thumbs down. that's the question. not to be argumentative tiff or competitive, so thank you very much for allowing me to ask these questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you, and i don't see
d.b.i. here, so i don't believe so they will be weighing in on this item, so we're moving onto public comment. president swig, i recommend that we limit it to two minutes, given that there are 64 attendees in the queue? >> president swig: i agree. >> clerk: okay. we'll move onto public comment, so if you would raise your hand. we'll go onto mr. mikel, please. >> hi, there. i want to make it very clear -- >> clerk: okay. mr. mikel, there's some interference. >> okay. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> i want to make it clear that the sponsor has done nothing to
[inaudible]. >> clerk: we lost you. >> if anyone is on redfin right now -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, mikel, you're going in and out. are you speaking into a computer? mikel, we can come back to you. we're going to go back to you. right now, we're going to take the caller who ends in 3219. 3219, you need to press star, six to unmute. okay. please go ahead. 3219, press star, six. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you.
please go ahead. >> okay. i want to mention the san francisco housing crisis is more acute than ever, and because of this, it's vital to build more homes and create more diversity in our community. this project meets 25% of b.m.r., and a home that supports personal and professional development. our policy makers should work together, and communicate affordable housing options. on top of that, the future residents have public transportations on corbett avenue and hopkins avenue, and
it was approximately about one-minute walk, and another -- on 925 corbett avenue and approximately a two-minute walk, and 0.2 minutes parking lots. indeed, on-site parking is no longer in [indiscernible] so this developmental right to [indiscernible] encouraging healthy living, and increased fitness, reduced air pollution. [indiscernible] new housing developments, and this presents that opportunity to embrace that project with
are and what the sense of entitlement and lack of sensitivity [indiscernible]. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i'm sorry. your time is up. thank you for your comments. we will now hear from cheryl traverse. please go ahead. >> my name is cheryl traverse, and i'm on hopkins avenue, and you are in favor of this building, you do not live in twin peaks because this is a monstrosity. i've lived here since 1985. my neighbors have lived here since 1963. all of these people who are talking who don't live here. hang up the phone. you don't get a vote. i'm tired of having to talk
about this. >> clerk: i see that stephanie fong put a comment in the chat. chat is only for technical problems in the meeting. i'm giving you one warning. if you do it again, you will be removed from the meeting. >> good afternoon. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition, here to speak on behalf of the project and against the appeal. a few days ago, i sent you a list of petition planners who are also in support of the proposal, a little over 115 or so, i believe, with a majority of them indicating that they've lived in the zip code directly next to the project, so there is a tremendous amount of neighborhood support, people who live in the community that support the proposal in front of you today. i was very interested in
passing of the home s.f. legislation and was proud to say that it was unanimously approved by the board of supervisors. below market rate site close to transit with a number of community benefits, improved public access that will directly impact our current neighbors here today. we are very excited to be in support and ask that you not only consider my public comment, but the 100-plus people who respectfully as possible to the previous commissioner's comment do have something better to do at 6:00 p.m. on a wednesday than hangout with us, so please do us a favor and reject the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from call-in user number two.
there's not a phone number, but please press star, six to unmute yourself. >> my name is [indiscernible] yee. i don't make a lot of money, and i'm currently taking care of my mother who recently had a stroke. i would love to live in a home s.f. project, but i don't see this project would fit into this area of town. i would love to have a family living arrangement, and i don't see how this project would be fitting in this space. i use a car to get to work 30 miles away, but i never see any parking in this area. i'm supportive of more housing
but not supportive of this development. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from john d. john d., please go ahead. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. please go ahead. welcome. >> hi. i'm here to speak on behalf of the appellants. i've lived in this neighborhood for 23 and san francisco for 47 years. i know that san francisco badly needs additional housing, particularly affordable housing, and just as a note, i'd like to make -- although i don't know how it's defined under the law, i don't know how below market rate housing is affordable to most people who are in need of housing. but that aside, there are nine unaffordable housing units in this spot. it is grossly out of scale of the neighborhood. it's really kind of a -- will be a blight on the neighborhood in general.
i think that there are places in san francisco that are more appropriate for adding affordable housing, where you don't have to impact the homes and lives of long time residents. i know people say this is a nimby thing, but it's not. this is a commonsense thing. i'll go back to the comment that president swig notre dame, that if you back up and look at this from the overall view of how this makes sense for a city that needs to be liveable and compassionate, this does not check the boxes. this takes the lot and puts it into a cramped area. taking a lot and turning it
into nine affordable housing units does not make sense. this is not the way to get affordable housing in san francisco. part of it will be affordable, but most will not be. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. now we'll hear from george molingo. >> thank you for taking my call tonight. i would speak in favor of this project. this always gets in the way of building affordable housing in san francisco, and i don't know. it's -- i believe that 1349s it can be an abuse of the -- that
sometimes it can be an abuse of the process. a duly noticed meeting took over 90 minutes of public comment on october 21, and it was perfectly fair and legal. we should respect the decisions of the planning commission, and at this time, i would ask respectfully that you deny that appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. chu. please go ahead. >> good evening.
i think that commissioner honda called the sponsor a developer, and i think since the beginning of this project, we've seen red flags left and right. the first is we see it's affordable by design. once we shrink an apartment to one-tenth the size, i suppose anybody could afford it. but is there a point where it's so dense that it's outrageous, and how do we draw that line? there's been so many fallacies
in the project. we've had meetings where people have called in, and it always sound like they're all sitting next to each other, all reading the exact same script, and, you know, people from the neighborhood, you hear them say that i live on corbett, i live on -- i live at 895, and i'm happy to offer that, but the people who call in in support are never the ones from our community. it's hard to know where one starts and the next stops. thanks four your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. we'll now hear from the commenter whose number ends in 2498. >> my name is jennifer, and i'm
a property owner on corbett avenue on 30 years. we are a diverse family oriented neighborhood this is 100% supportive of more housing in san francisco. the unit is extremely massive, and some of the units in this development are 390 square feet. that's, like, the size of a bedroom. during this first meeting, mr. fung says this is the size of a typical unit in hong kong. well, mr. fung, i have family that lives in hong kong, and they would not recommend squeezing any family into this small space. i would like to know, what is
the square footage of your home? this development will absolutely be encroaching on many neighborhoods' homes, and they would be looking down into our homes. a few years ago, i tried to extend my balcony by 3 feet, and the planning commission told me i would be encroaching into my neighbor's house, and now, there is a building that will be doing the same thing. why the double standard here? why -- >> operator: that's your time.
>> clerk: okay. we'll now go onto the next speaker, glenn b. >> hi. can you hear me? this is glenn. >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> okay. thank you. i'm at a loss as to what this project would have done differently if we were in a high density district. how does the neighborhood actually show how you should do it? and also, has anyone from the planning department actually visited this site in our neighborhood? many years ago, someone tried to build a unit that was 300 square feet. how about rather supporting lower density and increasing the size so that they really
are family friendly. you can't call a 550 square foot one bedroom a family friendly unit. there's no cafes, parks to walk to when you want to go out of your place here. secondly, we are on a hill, and everyone i know here has at least one car per unit, often even two or three, depending on what's living here. if you walk down the entire length of the street, nothing has parking, which doesn't make any sense. it just seems like the realities of the neighborhood have been ignored. and lastly, i'm concerned that the b.m.r. units will be the smallest units. if you take the smallest studio, one bedroom, and two bedrooms, that's only 17% of the square footage, and that
should be 25% of the other units' square footage. >> clerk: okay. let's go to the caller ending in 6845. >> okay. my name is chester. i would like to voice my opposition to the proposed project and request a modification. i just want to comment that the parking situation on corbett avenue is already super difficult as it is, and with the new housing project, it will only get much worse. not only are there uneven parking spots, there are not
even enough parking spots. the streets are narrow, and my car has been dented already several times because of the dire situation. this project will bring so much vehicle and foot traffic, i do not believe it was well thought out for the safety of the neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose number ends in 4586. please go ahead. press star, six to under mute yourself. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is tiffany, and i was born and i am a resident at corbett avenue. one of my biggest concerns is this project will create an overflow of parking on corbett and upper market. we're a high transit area.
i live in front of 37 bus stops. that's the only bus stop on corbett street. i understand that home s.f. does not need to be a transit area or have parking, and they have this ecofriendly [indiscernible], and that sounds great on paper, but this is real life, and we do need parking for those with cars and accessibility for public transportation. i am not against having more affordable housing, we are against this project structure,
but even if this project goes ahead, it will not meet the need. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll go to connor j. >> hi. my name is connor johnson. can i turn on my camera? >> clerk: hi. we're moving you to a panelist. okay. mr. johnson? you should be back with us. one moment. >> my name is connor johnson. my brother and i have lived at [indiscernible] for going on a -- >> clerk: we can't hear you. you froze.
>> oh, no. >> clerk: can we restart the time? >> operator: yes. >> clerk: okay. do you want to go ahead? >> yes. so my name is connor johnson, and my brother and i have lived on corbett for ten-plus years, and back in the 1960s, we have actually lived on the 1800 block of corbett. i want to be respectful to my neighbors, but contrary to their assertions, there are many people in the neighborhood who support this project and who actually believe that means supporting housing means supporting housing in your own neighborhood. i think this is the fourth time i've spoken in favor of this
that people are saying that this is going to be creating overcrowding for the community, it's flawed, and it's not accurate, so i just want to comment that and appreciate the previous commenter to provide his support because i agree. all the points that he make is so legitimate, so thank you very much for providing that feedback from the previous commenter. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.
block open space, which has allowed me to have some light and air. you'll have to excuse me. i'm very emotional about this. i'm trying to not, but believe me, it's difficult, to hear people that have no connection to this to be in support of a project, and those of us that are affected by it not being considered appropriately. any way, currently, as i say, i have some -- some light and air coming because it's a small sliver of open air. i'm sorry. i really am upset. any way, what will be replaced by this project is i will now have a 50-foot wall, solid wall, that will cutoff my air, cutoff my light, and i will no
longer have any semblance of privacy because there will be a rooftop deck that will look directly in my bedroom, my bathroom, my dining room, and my living room. this developer has made no attempt to make any significant modifications for any of us, and there has not been meetings with any of us. just because you can do it does not mean you should do it. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the caller who ends in 6468. go ahead. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> my name is [indiscernible] i'm not living in this area,
but i have a job in this area. the reason i'm not living in this area is because i cannot find affordable housing available in this area, so i have to spend hour, travel a commute from san mateo to the city. so i hate commuting. i hope i can find housing in this area. that's the reason i would like to support this project. as far as public parking, i think i have a job here. i'm living here, i can take public transportation as far as a commute. that's the reason why i would
support this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please go ahead. >> my name is weston, and i believe i heard counsel for the respondent state that a standard review for a home s.f. project is a significantand adverse health and safety effect. my question is is a development with multiple roughly 300 square feet units in it, where one unit is effectively subterranean in an area of the city independent of what anyone else has said, if you actually visit the location, you'll see
is entirely unbikable unless you use the public transit to bring the bike back to the facility, is entirely unwalkable to any type of commercial services or anything like this. we're much closer to the top of the twin peaks hill than we are to the bottom. it's probably a 500 to 700-foot drop to noe valley, where there's no parking, so there's no availability for automobile access, aside from on the streets. is that truly what we want for the residents of san francisco to be living in? so that's my simple question to the board today. appreciate the standard of review is what it is, and you have to act on what you're capable of acting on, but from what i hear, that's a
determination that you're capable of making. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from karen nittoy. please go ahead. >> hi. i am a resident in the neighborhood, and actually, i am below this unit, and nightly, i walk there with my dog. i am on the other end of 23 street, on the other end of portola, so i don't see how this could be built there. my husband and i walk there, and we wonder how something could be built there. yes, it's like a knowledge creativity invention. it's obviously for all the
older people there. yes, there is that parking back there, but it's not very nice. it's a little far away from the unit, so it's not just like you park nearby, and then, you just walk to your home, and yeah, in terms of affordable housing, i think the people can afford to go down there are not the ones in the bottom of the building because obviously it's going to be the real bottom.
any way, i see what the plot looks like and how small it is. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from sarah wilmer. sarah wilmer, please go ahead. >> yes, this is sarah wilmer. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, please go ahead. >> i live down the street in the neighborhood in noe valley. i'm an architect, been an architect for almost 20 years and lived in the city for almost 30. i'm on the housing committee, and i think we should trust the
planning commission and the planning department to vet the value of this as a housing proposal. having worked with the planning department, they are vetting is seriously. i think we need to have it for single young professionals, and i would also add that it has two public schools, and 24 street has a lot of small stores and restaurants, and those places need people that can afford housing, and they
can walk to work. they don't have a car, and they might not even have a bicycle, so i support this for the neighborhood at large. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. call-in user four? okay. we can come back to you. we will now hear from yen. please go ahead. yen. can you -- >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, i can. >> yes, i am a resident in the
these are positions, other reasons why california has a housing crisis. california [indiscernible] and we should be waste our tax dollars on challenging their [indiscernible] given the above reasons, i strongly urge the board of appeals to take into consideration the community benefit and trump this planning department's decision and disapprove the appeals. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll try to hear from call-in user number four. please press star, six. yes, you did it. go ahead. [indiscernible] yes, we can
hear you. please go ahead. >> oh, yes. my name is [indiscernible] and i live in 911 argent alley, unit number four. and i'm appealing for the proposed project on 4512 23 street, which has been approved by planning commission on october 21, 2021. i am not opposing to the home san francisco program, but i am opposing to this project in 4512 23 street. i believe the size of this project is massive, and it's extremely dangerous for the stability of the building
because of the excavation they're going to do. i believe that this 13-unit building belongs into a bigger lot in a different neighborhood, and also, i believe that this design is a scam for his own self-interest, and his developer is using and abusing the san francisco home program. so this project, i feel, is [indiscernible] going to be approved because this is not the proper place for this 13
units. approving these 13 units will create a massive impact [indiscernible] thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from dolly. please go ahead. one moment, dolly. we're going to have promote you to a panelist. dolly, please go ahead. >> hello? my name's dolly? i'm a concerned neighbor, and i support the project on 23 avenue because it'll add new homes and solve the housing problems in san francisco and create more affordable homes in the process? the appellant used incorrect information from san francisco planning department to hold office buildings of these 13
units. please note that the planning commission has already held a duly accounted meeting and allowed over 1.5 hours of public comment regarding this project. given we're having a housing crisis in san francisco, i strongly urge the board of appeals to take into consideration the housing benefit [indiscernible] and approve the bill. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from sarah [indiscernible]. please go ahead. >> thank you. yeah, so i just wanted to kind of mention in regards to community outreach, which they have done quite a bit of, that is not the case, and i do ask what they -- that they provide
confirmation on the number of meetings and how long have they lasted. it's the only meet -- the only meeting that the appellants were aware of was in a library that was scheduled to close about an hour into the meeting. there's already been displacement in the neighborhood given that this project will take a lot of air and light from the families that live here and will continue to live here.
respectful. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll go to the caller who ends in 8605. can you please press star, six? >> yes, hello. my name is andrea draper. i do not have housing, and i'm 53 years old and disabled. even when i had housing, i struggled because i've always worked unskilled jobs. i'm the person that cleans your toilet, i'm the person that pours your coffee, i'm the person that washes your sheets
that you slept on at your hotel. we all want these services. we can't do without these services. i cannot work anymore. i'm on disability. however, when i did work, it was a disincentive, frankly, to not not able to rent an apartment. i felt bad for the man who called in and said that he had to commute from san mateo and said he had to ride his bike, and the following commenter who refuted that he had to ride his bike. does he go him? i don't have a car. with can he find 15 -- can we find 15 people who don't have a car? i'm homeless and have lived homeless for quite sometime,
and i don't have a car. there's a safeway within a mile of there. why are you saying there's no stores or services? i'm in support of this project. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from david. please go ahead. >> hello. i'm just calling in to provide my vocal support for the project. when i moved to the bay area, housing was very expensive, and i didn't have a good job, and i had to live very far from where i worked, and i lived in a very dangerous area. i was exposed to many things i would not have liked to have been, but i had -- if i had housing in a nice area, like twin peaks, i wouldn't have had
to to what i did. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 0982. you need to press star, six to unmute yourself. 0982 -- >> hi there. >> clerk: yes, hello. >> hi there. i'd like to thank everyone for their time. i'd like to go back to one of the first callers, george, who are in support of this, and just kind of the pattern of corruption that's going on here. george is actually a lobbyist, so we've actually had the first caller from san mateo who is owe a lobbyist.
we've also had a caller claiming to in be housing but he really works inside city government. your problem is your president has said, i am [indiscernible] realtor. he has not recused himself from things. we are really concerned about the ignorance that's going on here. i don't know how you reconcile no parking and budding families. how is someone going to raise a family in twin peaks -- it's called twin peaks for a reason. there is literally no one that bikes up and down here, never mind families. safeway a mile away? safeway, as you know, is 45
minutes down here, and uphill with groceries? it doesn't make any sense. and lastly, i'd like to point out this city counselor who owns this development, who owns this corporation, there are so many people that have -- pardon this, that the president of the board of appeals has to step down because he literally is on the payroll, and it's a city counselor, and seabrae is a firm that's already been indicted that's had to step down from other city councils. this is lunacy. >> clerk: okay. we have one other caller. greg tracey? >> hello? >> clerk: yes. hello, you have two minutes. >> yeah, i'm one of the residents of corbett avenue, so
on doing, according to his application. it's almost as if the developer is adding boiler plate features to make it seem appropriate for home s.f. using home s.f. as a means to justify the added height tacked onto this project undermines the equity and value of the project in this area of san francisco that can not handle something like this. the proposed structure is looking to take advantage of a program that's designed to take advantage of a lot designed to hole much more future residents -- hold much more
we really do need housing, but i really resent -- >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any further public comment on this item, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see anymore hands raised, so we'll move onto rebuttal, and we'll hear from miss lee. miss lee, you have three minutes. >> can you hear me okay? >> clerk: yes.
inspection. our various concerns and questions, which can be found on the planning department website, have yet to be addressed. the only concession they claim, a 25-foot front set back on the fifth floor was part of an agreement between the seller and the sponsor. the lot is not big enough for this project, and not enough has been done to ensure that the community and the project can be safely built. the act of building it will certainly affect the neighborhood. if you look at the lot, and if a beam falls from the top floor of construction, it will be a russian roulette on our lives and homes. given that, how can this not
impact air and light, transit, and street parking? at the end of the day, you've heard the diverse voices of our community, the ones whose voices have not been heard yet, and the voices who fall on deaf ears. we're asking for you to have concern for our neighbors, both current and future. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the attorneys for the determination holder, and mr. patterson, if you're going to answer the question, we won't start your time because you were answering a question. so did you want to answer that
now or did you want to do your rebuttal? what did you prefer to do first? >> president swig, what is your preference? i'm happy to do either. >> president swig: you can answer my question now and keep it clean. >> okay. commissioners, ryan patterson for the project sponsor. so the question was asked about community meetings, and i will share my screen so you can see the sign-in sheet here. so here's the answer. it just took me a moment to find the list of meetings. there was a preliminary meeting with a focused group of corbett avenue neighbors in august 2019 that presented a first design in drafting drawings, discussed the project's scope, height, massing, density, neighborhood
concerns, and mutual design elements. there was also a meeting with at least 22 community members and neighbors on january 27, 2020, in noe valley, as you heard. they discussed new drawings, project designed, and new ideas. there was another meeting on [indiscernible] 2020, and more enhancements were incorporated into the new design there, and more than 30 participants joined that meeting. there were also a number of outreach phone calls and discussions in regards to the building design context, concerns, and proposed modifications. there is a follow up meeting on july 30, 2021, with a consultant and attorney representing corbett avenue
neighbors, and there was continued outreach to the corbett avenue neighbors in an attempt to reach consensus and hopefully gain their support. these outreach discussions predated my involvement in the project, and this is my understanding in detail of what i have been given of those meetings. >> clerk: okay. thank you. did you want to start with your rebuttal portion now? >> certainly, thank you, and i'll try to keep it brief because it's getting late now. i want to note, commissioners that there have been three hearings now on this project, and if you look at the types of claims that the appellants have raised each time, it is a lot of the same, it's a lot of unfounded claims, but i don't
disparage the neighbors in a way that they are unfortunately disparaging the project teams. they have their homes and their lives that they're trying to protect, and i respect them as neighbors. however, the city is in a housing crisis. the state is in a housing crisis. in san francisco, we have the home s.f. program, which prioritizes housing and affordable by design housing, which is exactly what this project is bringing. it is a density bonus of sorts. it is a height increase of sorts, and that's specifically the objective of the home s.f. program, and the appeal process with the home s.f. project is a
very narrow scope of review. what the appellant is asking for hear clearly would violate the housing viability act, and that would be a violation of the state law, and that's not acceptable. the project sponsor has made efforts to better fit into this neighborhood better than it would otherwise. it could have been significantly larger, and they put it back. i think there are decisions that have to be made to bring housing to the city, and this is a good project on balance. i hope that the commissioners, you will ultimately support it. i hope the neighbors will ultimately support it, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i don't see any questions at this time, so we'll move onto the planning department. miss tam?
>> president swig: i'm sorry. what are the units that are designated b.m.r., please? >> okay. i don't know if they have been designated that yet, but this is -- there is a prescribed mix of zero, one, and two units that must be designated affordable units. they can't take their pick of unit types for that. >> president swig: so will there be -- tina, would you be prepared to answer this? am i hearing you right that there would be four units, right? >> there would be four b.m.r. units. >> president swig: and one would be the 300 square-foot units, one would be a one
bedroom, one would be a two bedroom, and one would be a three bedroom? >> one would be a studio, one, and two bedroom, and it's required that one of them be that. >> okay. maybe miss tam can -- so i won't focus on that. thank you. >> thank you. tina tam for the planning department. to answer the number of b.m.r. units on this project, the answer is six, which is under the home s.f. program. one will be a studio, one will be a one bedroom, and one will be a two-bedroom, and then, the size of the units do meet the home s.f. requirements.
i don't believe they've been designated yet, but they're required to follow the program's requirements that they should be spread out and shouldn't be in locations that are, like, you know less desirable than some of the other units in the property. and to answer vice president lazarus' question, this is contributing two units under the housing availability act with that, both the planning department and the planning commission are in support of
this project. department does not believe the planning commission erred or abused their discretion in approving this project, and so at this point, we respectfully ask the board of appeals deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. president swig, did you have another question? . >> president swig: yes. i'm kind of concerned that mr. duffy wasn't here tonight, because i went through the plans, and as was in public comment, that 300 unit that is in the basement, you know, that's almost uninhabitable. i haven't been to the site because we don't do that. i did study the plans, and i
did see that it was subterranean, and i did hear the comment that it was under the neighbor's foundation. that's scary. and then, what also is concerning to me is the amount of light going into that unit because we've had a couple of projects that we've discussed over the last couple of years in basement units that seem to have more light than this, and man, planning shot them down in a minute. there was one in russian hill, in supervisor peskin's area, and the developer got a little ahead of himself and kind of redeveloped the basement apartment and did a beautiful
job, at least could see and your colleague, mr. sanchez, noticed the lack of light. where are the controls here? where's the consistency? this bothers me. what's going to happen -- who's -- what is our last bite of a project -- it's legal. that's not my job to figure out, but it is my job to figure out whether this is an accident waiting to happen. and why isn't mr. duffy here? why hasn't buildings looked at the fact that 300 square foot apartment is subterranean
enough that it's under somebody's foundation. and in fact, that was a great objection. thank you to the caller to suggest that it is a flood zone looking to happen. and what about -- and why is the light in that apartment appropriate when we have had many, many, many subterranean basement apartments which seems to me have had more light that have been rejected, where this one passes through? the double standard here is really bothering me, and miss tam, i would like you to address that because, you know, just because -- i love home s.f. i want more housing for san francisco. i'm all for this, but i'm also not going to compromise, i'm not going to compromise my valuables, and i'm not going to stop from protecting the public from being subject to bad planning decisions because we've got to get more housing
built. i know the temptation, it's very hard. but what about that? what about this unit? please tell me why d.b.i. isn't here. please tell me about the insufficient light, and please tell me about the unit that your department has looked at. >> so in regards to the unit size -- >> don't go there. under the foundation of a next-door neighbor, subject to potential flooding, and not looked at by d.b.i. focus on that, and don't change the subject. thank you. >> yes. so this particular item before you tonight, it's for the affordable housing bonus project. we don't believe that the
sponsor has developed building plan or structural calculations, so i can't speak for d.b.i. i assure you once this project, if it gets entitled, would need to proceed next to another agency, d.b.i., who will be reviewing those plans in a very careful manner. and in those -- >> president swig: our last bite at this apple -- >> no, the building permit themselves -- >> president swig: is this that? >> no. this can be appealed back to you, the board of appeals, within a certain amount of time frame once the item has been appealed. >> vice president lazarus: why don't we ask the city attorney
that? >> president swig: great question. mr. russi? >> i believe the permit would be issued to the planning department once they're issued. >> vice president lazarus: this is the planning department's decision? >> yes. it's the planning department's decision under section 28 of the planning code. >> president swig: so we may have another bite at the apple due to some potential issues on this project, correct? right? >> as i said, commissioner swig, the building permit would be appealable to the board once it's issued. >> yeah, i can do a johnny carson carmack imitation, and i can almost guarantee based on this hearing we're going to see this again.
thank you. >> clerk: vice president lazarus? >> vice president lazarus: yes. perhaps mr. russi could elaborate if this project falls under the housing accountability act and what this project can and cannot do. >> sure. thank you for the question. the housing accountability makes sure that we're meeting the housing and other requirements in the city's codes. and i think then that would
also need to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence of the record in the adverse impact. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so this matter's submitted. >> president swig: commissioners, can somebody start, please? >> vice president lazarus: i'll be happy to start. i think, based on my questions, you can see that i think we need to support this project. i understand that no project is perfect. this meets the criteria. if there are changes that need to be made for life safety purposes or other issues that fall under the department of building inspection, as you have now learned, we will have a chance to perhaps hear more about that. but as this issue stands, i would reject the appeal. >> president swig: commissioner lopez, any thoughts? >> commissioner lopez: yeah, i'm of the same mind as vice
president lazarus, and, you know, the one thing i did also want to say is thank deputy z.a. tam. it's kind of tough when you're the one that shows up, and you may not have representatives from another group, but we need your input. >> president swig: thank you. commissioner chang? >> commissioner chan: yes, i agree. commissioner, you raised a couple of questions about available light and air, and i do think they factored in what's called exposure into their review, and that's one of the criteria that might be
explored or carefully considered before approving this project. so i can see while it sounds incredulous, that there would be another unit below a foundation just purely by the slope of a lot. but any way, that is getting too far in the weeds, that that kind of came to mind as you were speaking, and i thought i might address it. more broadly, though, i concur with where vice president lazarus and commissioner lopez are heading, and i do think that based on my review of the plans, size of the units, although seemingly smaller than a lot of the units in twin peaks are consistent with what you might find in family units across the city, especially that are getting constructed now.
and i also do not think that, just stepping out again, i don't think that the commission erred in their decision, so those are my overall thoughts. >> president swig: thank you for your comments and for your thoughts towards myself. they were very helpful for me. i'll let somebody else make the motion. i just want to have a fair shot at making a comment. clearly, i'm uncomfortable with this project, and clearly, it kind of for me fits into the if it can be built and it's reasonable, and it checks all four of the boxes, should it be built in this location? that's an ambiguity that's probably going to move forward into the future, and we shall see. it's important that we build housing in san francisco. home s.f. is a great program that i believe we all need to
support. it's just tough when we have these odd ball kind of out-of-scale buildings, but they check off all the buildings, and it's hard if you're in the immediate community, that this is being forced upon you. i'm sympathetic to the neighbors, but i have to support the project not because i like it, because anybody else likes it, but it fits and it checks off all the boxes. like commissioner lazarus says, this is compliant, so since she said it first, i'll ask her to make the motion. >> vice president lazarus: move to approve the motion finding that the planning commission neither abused nor overstepped
its authority. >> -- abused its authority. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. >> president swig: okay. while you're getting darryl back on-line, it's 7:14. may we take a 15-minute break, then, to 7:30 and start again? and because i know that the next item is probably going to have a lot of public comment, and we don't want to be here until the wee hours of the morning. >> clerk: okay. >> president swig: we're going to limit public comment for the next item >> and 6d these are appeal numbers 21-076-077, 079 and 078
and joshua cliff, glen rogers, david rowe man owe and deanne dellbridge versus san francisco public works subject property of various locations are market street and appealing the issuance on july 30th, 2021 to bay area rapid transit approval treatment of 32 street trees at various locations and on market street for the construction of can pee structures over the bart enter trances. if the trees and bay since cannot be replaced due to not meeting the minimum planting, the face value should be assessed which is greater in value. tree replacement is required where refew able and shall be planted with at least order number 205249 on october 27th,
upon motion by commissioner and because of the determination holder did not timely provide a space to the appellant and the parties groat to this later date, on december 15th, 2021, upon motion by president honda the board voted 5-0 to january 26th, 2022 for the parties to negotiate. you have three minutes. >> let me share my screen. >> just a moment. can everyone hear me and see my screen. >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking the bart team for working with the ella pel ants. you asked surgical precision and to work and come up with a
better plan and bart did all of this. i'm going to very briefly summarize agreements we have reached in this process. first bart has plans with nature in the city to unstall living roots on canopies and the executive director is here to present regarding this innovative pilot project. second, bart has agreed to tree planting approach specifically the public works in replacement fees to go towards planting along this corridor in areas that overlap with cbd areas of responsibility and will work with public works and cbds to achieve this in the next six months and in doing so, maximize the fees and invest in grown workforce development and third, the acting director of public works and assistant general manager and true planting place along market is limited because underground infrastructure and it allows trees to be planted in temporary sub grade basins when they have out grown those basins
we transported elsewhere for permanent planting. first, san francisco lack of a street tree nursery and lack of sufficient volume along market for long-term planting and this eco forward design if successful would reduce our carbon footprint and replicated all over san francisco and licensed by the city. this project has director shorts and including pilots and and engineer with the masters in mit and she has agreed to consult on this project pro bono and you may remember my appeal a few years ago involving web core after they removed two trees for construction on van ness and they implement urban forestry best practices and i share with carl and he has agreed and
they're an example of what can be done when they're reach a better result and bart and their arborist, construction and engineer team managers conducted a trees removal and now have reduced that number trees removal from 26 to 11. again, i thank the team at bart, carl holmes, mark dan owe, as well as my fellow appellants and director short. the real work starts after this hearing but i believe in the commitment of these leaders and continue to work in a partnership with them. >> clerk: thank you. we have questions from president swig and vice president lazarus. >> president swig: you know i admire you tremendously and we knew each other before i served on this commission but thank you so much for the knowledge that you are brought fourth for then ingear that you put fourth and
for the results that are achieved and this is another example of that so thank you very much. also, thank you to the collaborators and in this case, the bart team and miss short and her team and ddw and i hope this sets a paradigm for the city to look at so we can move forward in such a constructive fashion and now that you've achieved all this, where do we sit with your appeal? what are you looking for tonight? what should we -- i'm going to ask the same thing, this is not showing bad towards your opinions although i like them a lot, i'm going to ask the same of bart. with these collaborative effort and which you seem to have achieved, where do we go tonight
on this appeal? are you withdrawing the appeal that would be the one extreme. are you sustaining the appeal and looking for specific answers and if so, what are those answers or what are those conditions so that you are looking for, please? thank you. >> yeah, i don't think i can withdraw the appeal because based on the wrack that's been done, we're not talking about the same permit anymore or the same decision anymore. we've gone down from 26 standing trees and i think seven, six or seven empty tree basins to 11 trees so it's not the same decision that was on appeal. so i don't think i can say that i would withdraw my appeal and in terms of what else i would like for, i see this procedurally similar to what happened with mission verde where there was a number of proposals, in that instance,
public works had agreed to and so with that agreement putting that into the record, on motion which is what happened in that case, in july of 2020. >> president swig: ok, and so as we move -- please keep in the back of your mind, we have another -- we have some more time in rebuttal. please, keep in the back of your mind when we move towards a decision, the laundry list of elements that you might want included if we go in that direction of finding for your appeal and what conditions that you are looking for and also so that when you come back and rebuttal and you verbalize that list of conditions, i can ask the project sponsor his position on each and every one of those
items so that we can reach a collaborative direction on this and move forward. is that ok for you? >> i did vet all of that language with mr. holmes and director short prior to including it in my presentation with the caveat i have three minutes so something i said may have been abbreviated so i'm sure carl will correct me if i've misspoken but i made sure it was vetted out before i presented it. >> president swig: i want to make sure, you know, if i ask you the question what are your items, you have more than throwe minutes. would you be prepared to reaffirm those items in rebuttal, please, so that mr. holmes can affirm or deny that position of collaboration, ok? >> clerk: press swig, there's no rebuttal. >> president swig: oh, you are right. >> clerk: if you have a question you can ask and get a response. >> president swig: i'm going to
ask for a list so that when we get to the point of making a decision in the direction on this, that we are prepared and we're not stumbling around with making sure that we have all these bases covered. you are really great at capturing all of this stuff so somewhere along the line. >> i don't have a question i just have to say how it just amazed i am at this proposal. one of the most creative solutions to an issue that we've seen in a very long time and i am worried about setting a precedent but contrary to my usual philosophy, i hope it does set a precedent in terms of the parties being able to work together and really coming up with some phenomenal ideas that
will come forward. i'm delighted that we put this off and that the time, since the last hearing was spent so constructively so thank you for a really incredible contribution. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear hear from lance carn, you have three minutes. i saw you earlier. >> he is on, he is trying to get his voice. >> clerk: ok. do you need assistance? we can't hear you. you may be on mute. let me see. we can hear you now.
welcome. >> i'm going to share my screen. i'm having a little trouble getting my screen shared. >> clerk: we can have alex share for you. >> want me to share your slides? >> we could. i made a few changes but i can work around them. >> it's up to you, let me know. >> let me just try popping this in another couple times. i can see the screen i want to share. >> you have to highlight it. highlight and share it. click on it and then share it. and hit share. i'm trying that.
>> i'm embarrassed and i can't use zoom. >> you have no excuse. [laughter] want to run your slides and get this thing going. >> you have to flip them for me. >> so there's a time start now? >> yes. >> ok. >> gentlemen, my name is lance carnes. i'll talk about is the permit for the tree removal at the end of the december 15th meeting commissioner chang asked if you can respond to the assertion of permit is in error and mr. buck said the permit is
absolutely not inner sorry so the dpw permit is anything but error free. this is a screen shot from the december 15th meeting and i discovered 16 errors. the original -- to follow the evolution of the permit i used four sources all containing data from public works. next screen. so the original permit was from dpw, removal hearing. i had to listen carefully and wrote down the tree numbers and made the spread sheet to the right. since all activity occurred near
575 and 595 market, on the left there, i'll use that as the original permit for this presentation. to the right is august 30th sunshine request for 32 trees. and can you see to the trees added, the orange trees were deleted from the permit. i've been to enough board of appeals meetings you can't just add something to a permit. note the added trees are not part of the project but just random trees along market street. next slide. two new trees are added at the december 15th meeting. on the left is the august 8th version of the permit and on the right is the december 15th version of the permit and you can see here that
we've added two new trees so we went from 32 trees to 34 trees. and on the left is the 12/15 meeting where commissioner chang said is there everything ok and on the right-hand side is three big slater -- let's see. throw trees were added and three trees were deleted. so next slide -- >> that is time, sir. >> ok. >> >> clerk: thank you. i understand that glen rogers -- we have a question from commissioner honda. >> yes. so, we just heard your appellant
joshua cliff. did you not share the same experience that he is having at this point? were you involved in those same conversations? >> oh, yeah, i did the walk on market street and did everything. >> i mean, given what the previous appellant has said, are you sharing that same experience or are you -- >> actually i am. you are the board of appeals and i come to all your meetings and if the permit is correct why think you proceed. i would just like the same privilege to have the permit straightened out. i think public works misrepresents a lot of stuff. >> that answers my question, thank you. >> clerk: thank you, i believe glen rogers is unable to attend at this time. we will move on to deanne dellbridge. you have three minutes.
>> alex, you are doing my slide show, right? great. >> i am going to do your slide show. >> san francisco has a legacy of beauty to people from all over the world. i just want to remind you of a if you things from the last time. we all the grow that trees up lift us and that city people seek row newell and respite in trees. in every season we experience their beauty. even winter shows off their extraordinary silhouette. we like them when we drive, and we like them when we walk. and we like them in the middle of our streets. we even pay to hall them up to our working environments.
we all know that the future of our urban environment is green. that is not how market street started. it began with ugly and as one of the two main art trees through san francisco, it has evolved. but trees above all, as you can see on market street to the left here, eventually made it beautiful. we want to preserve the hard work that has been done by those before us in this city. and to do that we have to work together. thanks to the directive from the board of appeals where we became a team dedicated to agree on solutions that could save as many trees as possible.
art sent out a team to check tree by tree so i owe a major thank you to all of us. this is the list of the appellants, josh, lance, myself, the heroes of bart, carl holmes, zack, mark dana, louis and matt raymos and a engineer and the inspector brian ong from the bureau of urban forestries and nicolas crawford. we walked together from embarcadero high on sunday and confirming a agreement of every can pee-related tree. bravo for us. making every effort to save trees and make way for bart canopies so let's address the canopies. next slide. in chicago, they base their
canopies on historic design. i would like you to please go to slide number 30. i'm sorry, slide number 29. so during our walk, i got a tree, came up with an idea to a san francisco walk for trees. sponsored raising funds, planning trees and building for the future so that all of us can leave a living legacy to the great city. >> that's time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> absolutely amazing win for all of us. >> clerk: commissioner honda has a question. >> so one quick question. same that i posed to the previous appellant. given your video slide and testimony, are you happy with what has transpired between the departments, bart and the appellants concerning you? >> yes. you know, my biggest concern,
because in business there are always signed agreements to these kinds of negotiations, but in this case, i definitely feel that the good will is there and i do know that bart will follow through with their promises. i do feel the trees will be saved. >> that's why you are near front of the board. >> there were throw things. there were throw things. there was saving what trees that we could, and making the changes to make that happen, which bart will talk about, and then there are the green roofs, that's been agreed upon and then the follow-up to maintain those trees and to replace trees. >> thank you. >> yes is the answer. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from bart. i'm not sure who is going to be speaking on behalf of bart. >> the cape. everyone called him superman tonight. you have to have the cape there, carl. >> no cape but i appreciate
that. thank you, acting president and former president honda. thank you executive director rosenberg. my name is carl holmes, assistant general manager with bart and i am also pleased in all collaboration that has taken place and also president swig. i'm also pleased about the collaboration taken place up to this time and i appreciate the challenge that was posed to us at the last meeting to make sure that we can surgically go through every detail and come back with an agreement. i can say that we, i believe we have reached that agreement. it includes the pilot that i've been working with carl short as the dpw director and -- [please [pleasestand by]
if you could share the one feature of the city, that would be great. thank you. i echo all the things that have been said. i'm amber, nature in the city. we are glad to be part of the mitigation plan, making our city a better place for residents and visitors alike. so the vision for the living roof on the b.a.r.t. canopy. [indiscernible] we're just so excited to see this into completion. this project has the potential to transform market street into such a -- just an iconic street with floating gardens for
habitats up and down market street. benefits are numerous. include climates, improved stormwater management, so many things, and also goals that our city has set out, which is the updated climate action plan, the better market street plan, and it has to do with what market street is wanting to do with better streets notification. so our intention with b.a.r.t. is to partner with them, the city, our funders, and our installers and maintainers to work out all of the problems that everyone can see. insurance, fall hazards, the weight of the roof, and get everything to a place where everyone on the team feels comfortable. and that includes all the
coordination and permit building. we are also spear heading a corporate sponsorship campaign as part of this canopy living roof project. and then after that, nature in the city will align and manage the projects as they're installed. the design is a beautiful drought tolerant planting that is a natural environment for the northern swallowtail butterfly. we have a project called tigers on market street, which is how the butterfly uses the trees along market street for its food plant. they're designed for ease of installation, ease of maintenance, and that they can be removed without damage to the roof.
we will be providing b.a.r.t. with concept designs and construction documents to make sure that everybody feels comfortable with the process. i just wanted to say that this is a -- there are other living roofs in the city that are beautiful and that are worth looking at, so california department of sciences, 1 south van ness, and [indiscernible] are just a few. so that concludes our portion. we're happy to answer any questions, but we want to thank the creativity and innovation of the b.a.r.t. so we have a commitment from b.a.r.t. that we're going to move forward with our project development. >> thank you, amber. >> you're welcome. >> clerk: you have time.
>> so the idea is to work with tracey everline and other c.b.d.s to help with the funding for maintaining trees that will be replaced as part of this pop-up nursery also in collaboration with d.p.w. if we could have the presentation shared again for mark dana, or mark, will you share? >> thank you very much. thanks, amber, for that
presentation. this first slide is from the city, and in red, you'll see the trees that the -- the 11 trees that we ended up deciding could be removed. it was in blue, or the 15 trees that we would be saving. so if you can go to the next slide. this is the public works order, where each of the canopies identified several trees to be removed, either from two to four trees at each of these, and each of these trees is immediately in front of or behind the canopy. so in our slides -- let's go to the next one. this would be the first one at 380 market street. this is canopy number five, and as you see, we're able to save three of the trees that we had initially wanted to remove.
we're going to remove one tree. it's in good condition. let's go to the next slide. we can see that tree number five was in very bad condition, but we're able to save it and hopefully make it better. three number six is saved and pruned. next slide. we're going to save the tree number eight and remain tree number seven. it was agreed that we could remove this tree. all right. next slide. trees seven and eight from a different view. okay. we can go to the next slide. this can be number 6 across.
we are going to save two of the trees that we were going to remove previously. next slide. again, we can probably move through these fairly quickly. you can see the trees are in good condition, but it probably wouldn't survive our condition nor the final product. next slide, please. tree number six from a different view. next slide. there's a different view. next slide. next slide. we were able to save one of these trees previously. next slide. tree number two. some branches already removed by others, but we're going to
save it. next slide. we're going to save two of these trees slated for removal. next slide. we're remaining this condition, but we need over the canopy and in construction. okay. next slide. same thing. good condition on number five, and that's good. we're fine with going on here. 595, one tree is saved, the other tree is -- has been removed previously.
next slide, please. again, this particular location is not -- it's -- it is to be saved. next slide. so this is a tree on montgomery. that is the only tree at that location. next slide. that is the tree. at canopy -- 815 market street, removing one tree, saving one other. same thing. next slide. removing this one. next slide.
on 885 market street, we are removing one tree, saving the other. as you can see, the tree's very close to [indiscernible] and it can't be moved, so you understand why. next slide. removing that tree, poof condition. next slide. next slide. removing two of these four trees, saving the other two, and pruning them. next slide. removing -- these are the photos. next slide. next slide. next slide. next slide -- there we go. >> that's time. >> clerk: thank you. president swig has a question, then commissioner honda.
>> president swig: thank you very much. mr. holmes, i'd really like to thank you and your team for listening to our needs. i was particularly aggressive with you a couple weeks ago. you sensed my passion and my pride for my city. it's my city. i was born and raised here, and how we feel. thank you very much, and that's the difference. you guys took care. you went through an exercise, a surgical exercise, thank you very much, mr. holmes, about making it right, and it's so deeply appreciate. we sit here, week after week, and we don't know if we're heard or not. and you did give us the
pleasure of listening and making our job worthwhile, so i really thank you for encouraging this job, making this city better for ourselves and our citizens. you know what? i really care about san francisco, and i think it's worth saving. you know what? i asked mr. klipp for a list of things that we should use as conditions when we are taking a step tonight. do you have a written approved and suggested list that you can share with us and then get
information from the appellant so that we can move this forward, please? >> i believe that if we are able to share -- or share the screen again, it's the first slide, unfortunately, i'm just reading from my memory and not notes. that's what we're prepared to offer in our agreement that i think we've come up with together, but i respect the process. what i can say is we have listed -- just so we won't loose that reference. >> president swig: okay. this is your time, but is it okay if, for convenience, we ask the appellants, starting with mr. klipp, if they like this list and have a -- any
objections to this list or -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, president swig. before we go there, this is too broad. we need a list of how this d.p.w. order is being changed, what specific order is being removed. and further, as deputy city attorney russi stated in the last meeting, we cannot enforce an order for green roofs. the board can order they honor their agreement for green roofs, but we can't order that under the public works code. >> president swig: okay. can you keep in the back of your mind, julie -- thank you very much for that, and mr. russi, if you're listening. i know he is -- give us some guidance of what we walk out of here tonight with or whether we
have to spend another justified week in coming up with some documentation as a result -- >> clerk: if they don't have a list, i would suggest we continue this until they have a list because their proposal is 33 pages. >> president swig: i'm going to ask that we have some direction so that we can move forward. >> i think josh, from the very
beginning, his lift was very spelled out. mr. holmes, do you want to respond? >> my only response is that our response showed every single tree of the 32 list of trees that was already removed by others, which tree we planned to remove and which trees we planned to save. >> president swig: okay. thank you very much. appreciate it.
>> clerk: commissioner honda? >> commissioner honda: how did you guys come up with this? >> so i'll ask amber for to answer that, and thank you for your time. >> commissioner honda: thank you, amber. >> the canopies can bear the weight. they have the parapet structure around the outside -- >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry.
is that with the canopies? >> so the canopies, we're going to be designing with b.a.r.t.s help. >> commissioner honda: and when we have parades and everything, that no one is going to climb on a living roof. when the warriors win again or the giants, and i also want to reiterate what my commissioners have said. usually, when we continue things, people are tough to make happy. josh is smiling, and if josh comes back smiling, i just want to say thank you and kudos. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from the bureau of
urban forestry, and you have 12 minutes. >> good evening. this is chris buck, department of urban forestry. i'll keep it brief, and if it's allowable, i would defer any of my leftover time to b.a.r.t. or any other representatives. so a couple things regarding overall projects. i just want to thank the appellants. i want to thank b.a.r.t. and their team. as you can see, there were other people from our bureau. brian ong, who's an inspector, and nicholas, an acting inspector. there's really a lot of people involved in things like this, so i, too, am really, really pleased with all the effort that's put into things.
i provided a detailed powerpoint with our feedback. there's a couple of issues that we're working to resolve, but i did want to say the public works orders that were published and shared, the subject trees themselves were all properly noticed, so in that sense, no, there was no shortcuts or issues with moving forward on the permits, on the public works orders. again, if there's any outstanding issues in mr. carnes' mind, we're willing to
work with him in wrapping that up. getting to the actual specifics this, i'm going to go ahead and share my screen. it's a similar list to what was shown earlier, but let's share my version of this. so i just want to confirm that you can see a spreadsheet like document. >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. thank you. so what we try to do, anticipating that we were headed to resolution, i wanted to make sure we showed folks in a very single image view that we had 15 trees to be retained or saved, the reddish pink color. we also confirmed that five trees had been removed by public works tree crews, not by
b.a.r.t. or any other agency, so those are noted here, as well. we have an area for special conditions, where we can go beyond what board of appeals specifies this evening to add additional conditions to those permits to make all parties feel comfortable that there's -- that this document is in writing. so i understand that may not be the level of detail that board
of appeals may do this evening. likewise, i just wanted to point out that our team walked these sites. mark dana presented these details because we wanted to be very specific and clear about what we are going to do. we wouldn't be holding onto a public safety concern. granted, you know, some of those trees are in fair condition, but we're comfortable overall with the compromises, so just wanted to speak a little bit to that. we have very recently listed in a condition from the board of appeals with tree numbering a
b.a.r.t. >> i think we're okay. >> clerk: okay. >> miss rosenberg, we support the permit process to add notes. >> clerk: okay. so we're going to move onto public comment. is there anyone here that would like to provide public comment on these appeals? please raise your hand. okay. we have one hand raised. mr. nolty, please go ahead. >> good evening. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, please go ahead. >> i have a powerpoint, so we'll wait for -- >> clerk: okay. alec, do you have -- >> i have it up.
>> clerk: okay. >> okay. next slide. alec, next slide. yeah, i haven't started your time yet. i'll start it right now. >> okay. next slide, please. next slide. next slide. next slide. next slide. okay. as you can see, they were putting things inside the fences, so this is going to be an issue with the construction and how it's affecting the tree as they move forward. next slide, please. as you see, they've named
the -- -- i'm not sure why the change, so it's 641 market street entrance, and it's affecting the bicycle lane and so forth. next slide, please. as you can see, they put the fence up, and you can see the inside fence. they have more trees than what are actually on the permit to remove, so next slide, please. >> 30 seconds. >> okay. any way. so my point is, i would like to make the point that one of my agreements -- that the tree canopies be protected inside or
outside these fences during construction, so i think that's very important to add to the list of things that have to be put into the motion. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the caller whose number ends in 2402. okay. go ahead. >> yes, thank you very much. kathrin howard. i'm impressed with the super human effort to protect these trees, to come up with creative solution with now new planning, and i also appreciate the various people that have worked with the appellants. i am happy that the appellants will be supported by the
department. i hope that there will be serious consequences if the agreed-upon changes are not followed. i want to thank everyone for your work to protect and create urban forest and to create an additional habitat. i'm looking forward to see more of those butterflies along market street. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the caller whose number ends in 4616. okay. go ahead. >> yes, good evening, everyone. my name is linda shaffer. i am an advocate for nature of the environment and nature of justice. and i just want to echo what everyone else has said, that i'm so grateful for this
agreement, this presentation that has been reached. the trees, which have been -- trees often have values for humans, and what we've seen is it's possible to have the trees and projects, both of which are good for human beings. and i would hope that, in the future, when projects are plans from the start, that there would be equal consideration for nature that would be taken into account. that's my comment. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll now hear from michael nulty. michael nulty?
>> yes. my name is michael nulty, and i'm the director of san francisco for a best district 6, and i believe the agreement is a real improvement to the streetscape. i'm glad that they are also working with the community benefit district, that the community benefit district will take the lead in the city of
san francisco, and i hope that bart has sort of learned a lesson in how to work with the community in the future when they continue any other project in san francisco. and i agree with something that my brother said, that they protect the trees during construction, and enforcement is looked at when they're doing their construction process, so thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: rick gave me my one last night, so i'd like to start. i'm amazed that everybody somewhat came together here. my concern with making a motion
this evening is we have three separate appellants, and by the time that we got back and forth, as vice president lazarus said, back in the weeds, maybe a short clarification of what needs to be done because it appears it may not be as easy -- although josh's initial presentation was a lot more clear than i thought, i think there's a lot more things that need to be cleared up here, so i would recommend a short continuance so that they could clear up everything. anyone else?
>> vice president lazarus: well, i would wonder if there's sort of an ability for the parties to come together in sort of drafting and if the executive director could participate. i believe we don't have a meeting for another two weeks, but i believe that gives the parties time to do whatever drafting might be needed. >> clerk: i was just going to ask the table that buck showed, that seems to encompass the agreement of at least the tree removal or the trees that are being saved. is that right? >> vice president lazarus: do we need to try to memorialize -- do we want some reference to the agreement --
>> clerk: yeah, we would want a reference to some of the items that actually are not enforceable by the board -- i mean, they talked about living roofs and the pop-out tree basins and policy changes, but yeah, ideally, we'd have one document on everything. >> president swig: when does the city attorney come in? if i had this problem in private life, i would call my attorney and say, you know, recent agreement, but i'm not a drafter, so counsel, would you work with the other side and the other side and make sure that whatever they're drafting is going to work. so is this something you might get involved with, mr. russi? >> commissioner swig, i wouldn't be involved in drafting a settlement agreement between the parties regarding
this matter. so in this board's jurisdiction is replacement of trees under the code. >> president swig: can you provide advice and council as opposed to drafting so they know that they'll be coming back, along with the jay, please, to work with the parties to make sure that they come back and we haven't let them go down an incorrect path because we haven't given them clarity on some of the details. i think it's putting ink on paper and structuring a
document that can be memorialized. who can help from the board of appeals side? i know that julie is a lawyer, so maybe we can hear from her, but i want to come back here in two weeks because we know we caused a delay by moving this to this point. i think that was the best investment in time that everybody made, and i don't think there's any disagreement there, and now, we're all interested, now that there is an agreement, in moving it forward. but how do we best moving forward with a document that is acceptable to this body in format and so that we can memorialize it? >> vice president lazarus: so i
think i maybe have another idea, and stepping on myself, what i proposed earlier. there's a document that mr. buck had that outlines what the other intentions are, so i wonder if those both can't be put together in a motion in the permit that we would uphold the appeal, revise the document given by buck and to encourage the agreement -- the implementation of the agreement as proposed by mr. klipp and the fellow appellants. did that make any sense? >> commissioner honda: it did. i actually have another idea.
if we were at city hall, we'd give the appellants and b.a.r.t. time to go out in the hall and come back to us. maybe we have a case after this if there is a possibility that they can reach out to us while they're doing that case, and then, we can come back to that. would that be feasible to everybody? i can just see people nodding their heads, yes or no. that might be a possibility, since you guys have worked so well together to get one action. does that sound feasible to everybody? >> vice president lazarus: today, everybody all
communicating with each other? >> commissioner honda: yeah, second zoom call. rather than delaying the project for another two weeks, if we gave them enough time -- the next case is three cases combined, so we'll have maybe another hour or so. >> okay. >> commissioner honda: so that would be my question. >> commissioner chan: president honda, getting back to what miss rosenberg suggested, are we sure that we need that? do we not have the information to make the motion that is
required? i think we do. it's the information of tree that's need to be replaced, and it sounds like buck has that. and maybe we can ask the appellants and buck to respond to that? >> commissioner honda: my concern is we don't have one appellant, we have three separate appellants, and they all need to come together because that is the situation. and i feel like they have the ability to do so. because the thing is everyone's hands are up right now. if we continue this, we're going to go around another hour before it gets done. it's better that they communicate and come back to us after this is done, with the cooperation that the department and the project sponsor have. -- basically, we're going to grant the appeal and condition the permit.
that's the action that the board is taking, and they have to create the language that the three appellants are happy, and that everyone is kum-bah-yah. >> clerk: i'm sorry. it's almost 9:00, and we've got three cases, so i think it's going to be difficult for all the parties to coordinate and then get back to us. >> vice president lazarus: what if we craft a motion, and if it doesn't fit the bill and doesn't accomplish what we intend, we can weigh-in? and madam executive director, please feel free to weigh-in. but my motion would be to grant the appeal on the revised list of trees to be removed by the
bureau of urban forestry at this hearing this evening, and grant the parties to agree and implement the additional items as presented by mr. klipp, i believe, on behalf of his fellow appellant. >> clerk: sounds perfect. >> commissioner honda: you're just amazing. >> vice president lazarus: getting tired. >> commissioner honda: jim says that all the time to you. >> vice president lazarus: yeah, right. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to adopt the list of trees to be removed, presented by buff at the hearing.
which represented the agreement of some of the parties, and the board further encourages the parties to honor the agreement set forth in the presentation provided by joshua klipp. >> vice president lazarus: yes. >> clerk: all right. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and i would like to request that you send me the document that you shared this evening, please. and mr. klipp, please also send me your presentation. thank you very much. >> thank you. will do. >> clerk: we are now moving onto item number 7. have a good evening. moving onto item number 7. this is appeal 21-079 -- appeal number 21-108, jason stein and
san francisco heritage versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping, 201 buchanan street, appealing the issuances on december 2, 2021 is, to modus,, inc. , of a wireless box permit installation of a personal wireless service. and we will hear from the appellants first. mr. stein? >> hi. good evening, president swig. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. good evening, president swig, vice president lazarus, director rosenberg, and thank you for having this hearing. my name is jason stein, and i am here to protest the issuance of a wireless box in front of the nightingale house at 201
buchanan. there should have been a hearing before the c.o.a. was issued due to the obstruction of public views of the historic facade by the boxes and antenna, giving the owners and the public a voice in the decision. we had no notice of the c.o.a. or the permit process until after the permit was issued. when i spoke to planning, i was told that since it was an administrative c.o.a., that we weren't considered interested parties, so that really doesn't seem to make sense, so since it was denied, the public was
denied a way to have input on that. the c.o.a. states that the permit was issued to across from the landmark. this is going to go down in the records, and people need to know. also, article 10 in the f.c.c. rules necessitate denying the permit due to aesthetics, landmark status, and the [indiscernible] in the district. whenever we've done anything to the facade of the house, we've had to go through a hearing process because it's protected. anything, minor, minor detail, we've gone through planning, and we're happy to do it because we want to protect the house, as well. so their c.o.a. would be long
addressed. i don't think this serves to be disregarded as a typo. i think this is really an error that should void the permit. and next, i'll talk about the f.c.c.s ruling, because i already talked about article 10 in the appeal. so i'll paraphrase paragraphs 29 to 33 in my analysis for the sake of time, but i can show you the full text if you'd like. the permit should be denied for aesthetic reasons due to the designation of a landmark. next page, please. go ahead to the next one.
and the next one. >> there's only three. >> go back, yeah, to the other pdf. okay. as far as notice, i'll just touch on this. this is what we found after the permit was issued hanging on the pole in front of our house. there was no other photograph. it said across the street from 201 buchanan, and it shows a pole in front of 201 waller, so i don't know how we or any other members of the public could have gleaned that it was going to be in front of the house. the next photo i saw was in the opposite direction and not up against the house, so it didn't show the impact of it. next slide, please. and i did a public records request, and no photos were provided to me through that. next slide, please. okay. so back to the f.c.c.
i was talking about the three-pronged test, and according to that, they have the requirements that it's reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure and objectives. here, number one, it's reasonable, like fees compliance with the aesthetic requirement on providers and the impact on their ability to provide service is just as important as fees. the denial of the permit is reasonable since other alternatives such as using an alternate pole would avoid unsightly obstruction of the landmark. in this situation, the denial
of the permit is not creme in a story because -- discriminatory because the burdens are no more worse than in item 10. the commission notes that a requirement that all wireless facilities be deployed underground would amount to an effective prohibition given the propagation characteristics of wireless signals. here, they're saying, you know, a requirement that they would be undergrounded compared to that. and here, in our situation, just requiring an alternate location lower on the tier
ladder for a single pole is so minimal compared to that, that it could not rise to the prohibition considering the standards set forth by the commission. so under the f.c.c. rule and article 10, there have also been notice issues, and the errors on the permit, the city would be correct to deny the permit. at and iss alternate sites five, six, ten, 14, and possibly 17 and four would meet the requirement of the landmark, so i would ask that
you deny the permit. let me just back up -- >> clerk: okay. you can back up in rebuttal, but you have 30 seconds. >> okay. just go ahead and go to the next photos. that's the public space across the street. it used to be a parking lot, and now it's got even more significance from this angle that the pole obstructs. see people hanging out there. >> your time is up, but i'll leave the slides on for rebuttal. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. i believe that tammy black stone is here as a representative. >> yes, i am. good evening, everybody, president swig, vice president lazarus, and everybody. my name is tammy blackstone, and i am the executive
representative for at&t. just to save time, i will do my preamble. with me this afternoon -- >> clerk: we're only talking about 201 buchanan right now. >> yes, i am aware of that. i am going to say that we have a vendor that handled the permit processing for all three sites, and we have a representative on that will handle any questions for radio compliance, and we also have a legal representative for legal requirements. these are all small cell antenna permits. at&t has an obligation to maintain our network, and we are doing everything we can to keep up with the demand.
these small cell antennas -- sorry -- these small cell antennas are typically preferred because they are usually deployed on existing infrastructure in the public right-of-way. they improve the capacity of our network. they off load some of the traffic, and they will help with all of the different things that people are doing right now with their wireless phones. the city of san francisco has one of the most thorough review processes of wireless facilities of any city in the country, and because of that, here in san francisco, at&t and our vendors are particularly vigilant about following all of the requirements of article 25. all three site locations were selected after robust alternative site searches, and we did do proper notification. all three of these permits have been reviewed by department of public health, the planning department, and public works,
and all were rightfully and lawfully approved. we encourage the board to uphold the decision with all three, but i'll start first with our first one, which is 201 buchanan street. right here in front of you is our application process. we submitted the application in july, and then, we were approved in december. and all of the steps in between, all of the different departments reviewed and issued their approvals. on october 18, you'll see that the planning department carefully reviewed and considered and issued a certificate of appropriateness, and then, they further explained that the operations
on the pole combined with the position. with regard to the nightingale house, the planning department found that the proposed project will not affect the existing housing and neighborhood character and will respect the character defining features of the landmark building, and that's all in exhibit a in your packet. so here are the photos that show you the existing pole that's there already, and then, what we are proposing with our small cell antenna on top. we had a second picture that was in your packet, and after the appeal, we went back and took more pictures just to show you from more perspectives. the antenna on top will add
2 feet to the existing pole, and this is our alternative site analysis. all of those pink pins are the poles that we considered, and then, the yellow one is the one we ended up with. we really did do a thorough search here. 18 different poles were considered in the neighborhood. two, we weren't able to use because we couldn't have the antenna and still comply with the cpuc's general order 95. we had five that wouldn't just accommodate the city's preferred design. we had five that already had transmission equipment attached, so pg&e wouldn't license those poles to us. [please stand by]