>> it's an honest question not a trick question. >> i'm not sure what answer to give you i'm aware that mrs. kneeing e yee claimed in her brief i have no reason to disbelief her, her hoemgsz home is tagged i don't remember on her brief whether or not she said there was an at&t cabinet in her neighborhood that was regularly tagged. >> do you have you read the brief. >> before this evening. >> before this meeting. >> i've read it in the last few weeks i don't remember that maybe i missed it. >> you're saying you don't have information there's been on

effort to clean up 9 box in recent weeks let's say. >> we can get the report small business reports graffiti i'd like to asking asking have you ask her if she recorded it to 311 or an agency that notifies us there's graffiti on the box if not will until our technicians drive around that area we wouldn't know there's graffiti on the box. >> i'm asking if you have a record of it being cleaned up. >> we'll let you know if something has been cleaned up. >> that's what we need to know thank you, ms. short. >> good evening, commissioners

carla department of public works the mapping i will try to be brief and focus on the couple of points it's true that the department buildings we properly issued this permit however, it is also true point department buildings that the appeal must be upheld because the permit was not final by the time the new ordinance took effect this afternoon the director signed the hearing decision and the new order we'll be real estate it first thing in the morning i wish we would have had it today but about 4:30 i got the notification the director signed it. >> since you brought that up what was the reason for the delay ms. short. >> thank you talk for asking the reason for the delay the shoppers office that sponsored the irrational legislation asked

us to hold the hearing up for more public comment dpw was prepared we noted not belief to have the order that finalized right up against the 60 did day deadline business owner but within it and when the supervisor requested we give people more time we agreed to do it because they put the 60 day ordinance. >> sorry to interrupt. >> they said it was not pending in the ordinance and bans that the department feels that the board should uphold the appeal and the application we do agree that in order not to prejudice at&t that the one year prohibition does not apply,

however, the retroactive does apply the ordinance requires that the board uphold the appeal and at&t file another permit to install that on, on that note i'll say while i think that supervisor wiener has made it clear his ordinance was addressing some of the concerns raised by many of the applications put forth by at&t the law was not designed to target one entity and many other entities are subject to the smf ordinances we've met with other services providers that have to install smf and are subject to the permit and given the draft dwp order i'll dispute the

discertification that was designed to target one entity many concerns raised in particular about at&t surface mandatory facilities is the stipend to effect all applicants for surface mount facilities in public right of ways in san francisco. >> and lastly i'd like to read into the record our all the time statement it the board can't reduce to enforce 23 based it's preempted by state law at&t has agreed that must deny the permits to install smf's by granting those appeals the board will be denying at&t to install those types of cabinets and 901 and 5885 we believe this are

argument is not before the board the board lacks the ordinance to refuse to enforce it we're citing all the ordinances and citations they're in our brief it appears that at&t's claim it preempts the board under the ordinance 76 dash 14 a preemption raises that constitutional issues based on the california constitution that a city and county may make a local is an terror not in conflict with the general laws if otherwise, it conflict with the state law it is void ordinance 76 dash 14 is a valid impacted ordinance the board

could not review to enact the ordinance by state law i thought i would get that on the record because it will be used i'm available for questions. >> i don't think potentially. >> you sent a copy. >> i hoped to be armed but it got approved late. >> those appeals will not go away. >> hopefully, a constitutional process given. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, ms. yee i have okay step forward. >> i'm i do not say the street

i wanted to reiterate that see my neighbor is right we have a big problem with graffiti everyday we clean up so i don't know how me over see this we're getting fined if we don't clean up so the fact it is an at&t box is for sure it gets attention to the graffiti artists it's crazy they don't go there only but to the neighbors i think that we all like progress but why not put the box underground or use the old box because nobody uses landlines anymore they use cell phones so this is just i don't know. i he definitely it's at&t's an eye sore 40 for the

neighborhood we don't like the attraction so it's very, very i don't know as i said everyday we have to clean up graffiti so they don't do it we do it him i don't know it's, you know, i take it is an eye sore we prefer it underground so i don't know why they can't do it they use a public lines for the sidewalks to make money why not help the neighborhood and put the box underground i don't know any neighbor will have a position we defer the graffiti artists to do anything so i just so if you can convince them to put it underground and the other problems will be resolved. >> thank you. >> all right.

>> thank you is there any public comment? please step forward. >> hello my name is a pamela tom i'm the daughter of mrs. yee - >> i'm sorry. >> as a member of her family your time to speak is under the time she's allocated. >> i can't speak. >> she has rebuttal if she wishes you can speak under her rebuttal. >> stay right there are there others who wish to speak then we'll have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> in the brief you got in july i took those pictures and picture no. 2 and 4 of the cabinet where you saw the pictures today so this cabinet on my picture it

is cabinet 701. >> you can actually put that open the overhead. >> this is seven hundred 01 it shows it's on the first page i wanted to let you know he the cabinet didn't have. >> ms. please speak into the - and the cabinet doesn't have a paddle lock but a handle the picture i took i saw it on when i went to see my mom on sunday i said mom there's congregated think that thing again, i took a picture to show you in july after i filed the brief when i

took the picture for the brief then in july when i came back there was graffiti he wanted to share. >> is it the same graffiti or cleaned up and new graffiti. >> it was cleaned up so inhabits one ab were july 28th tagged on the front and back this time with only yellow paint on the front i pout to point out to the enlargement tilts indeed an at&t box. >> thank you. >> okay. we having, take rebuttal from the permit holder mr. johnson. >> sorry so commissioner hurtado you asked me if in

respect supreme court cases. >> i asked if the court of appeals cases you avoided that and i asked because they're not cited anywhere in the brief as an oral argument. >> i'm allowed to raise legal argument. >> i'm allowed to hear them but answer my question. >> off the top of my head i--i don't know if there's a cal decision i don't know if someone filed a written petition and the 13rush8g9 weighed it and you were going to say something

about the cal supreme court case and there are cal destruct cases i'll be happy to give you the citations. >> i don't have time to read them i'll note you're filing the same brief over and over again that's not helpful if you want us to consider the authority i suggest you put it in your brief that's my suggestion i'm happy to hear about the cal supreme court case. >> the discipline is an exception and if cities pass legislation that target developers to frustrate development the cities can't apply the new legislation to the permits because the fact pattern

in most of the cases the city will grant the developer or a homeowner a permit there will be complaints from other parties and the city council will hold an emergency meeting and pass new legislation and take the permit away on that basis the courts said p when you have that kind of fact pattern this amazes to illegal discrimination and in some situations the courts said you can't retro tiflg apply a new ordinance to take away permits you've grand that is essentially what's happening here. >> it's different from a corporation and a public like at&t. >> the distinction that the court makes. >> it's a constitutional right.

>> the court don't frame this as a constitutional right they do frame it as illegal discrimination but i've never seen a court rely on california due process principles to reach this conclusion they don't actually give any rational beyond as trainer gave wee when he is on the case. >> an old case. >> it is the case that people cites. >> it's still good law. >> yes. >> i don't maple to be difficult i don't feel it is

properly briefed it may or may not be the proper forum by i'll interested in the ultimate information. >> i'll be happy to provide more briefing this is helpful in not i'll certainly provide additional briefing for the next brief we file. >> i'm not the you will. >> do you want to continue the rebuttal? >> i have nothing further to add. >> thank you ms. short. >> thank you, carl la department of public works i should certainly shatter with the disclaimer i'm not an attorney but the argument by mr.

johnson is not equivalent it seems to involve legislation specifications to the one developer and if we agree it is the same as the legislation that effects anyone that's interested in installing an smf in san francisco i have a hard time understanding how that would create this expectation to the retro activity clause in my mind this is not an equivalent case we strongly feel the ordinance requires you uphold the appeal in this case. >> thank you, mr. short i'll inquire whether or not the city attorney has anything to add on the retro activity. >> i think my comment is brief which is to say this is not a forum to deciding the legality

the board must follow the legislation and mr. johnson is aware the court will decide the legality. >> pursuant to our charter and the constitution. >> okay. thank you thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, i think it's for the sake of consistency whether or not ms. yee specific concerns would be a basis to strike this permit under the old or new ordinance the way i see it for the sake of inconsistencycy and

the dpws brief we don't have a choice but to grant the appeal based on the retroactive and the new legislation yes, so move forward. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion in the vice president to grant the appeal and overrule the dpw and deny this permit and with the finding this permit didn't to the ply with the new smf ordinance ordinance 76 dash 14 anything else on that motion to overly overrule commissioner fung the president is absent commissioner honda thank you vote is 3 to zero because of the

boards vacancy only 3 votes are needed this permit is over ruled with those finding thank you. >> okay cynthia goldstein will it makes sense to take item 12 before the break. >> i'm not sure the parties are here is the appellant attorneys in the room sure. >> so what we will do to call whether or not a continuance is needed i'll call items 12 abc all of them filed by marie vs. the department of building inspection some with the department approval on filling burn street to zoning property, llc of an alteration priority to

convert to a single-family home with new stairs and staircases and an alteration for the units and also a plumbing permit for a forced air furnace we can hear from the permit holders attorney they make a request that the matter be continued and give the party how many minutes. >> one minute please. please identify user. >> good evening the board i think we have i'm sorry. >> your name. >> julie. >> good evening we have an agreement among the parties and as well as the inspector the dpw to continue this matter we have

choose november '57 if that's okay with the board. >> and what's the basis we have to decide whether we want to continue this case can you give us your best reason for wanting to continue. >> i've been recently retained to step in literally last friday. >> and you need more time to prepare. >> yes. >> okay. thank you is there any opposition to the motion can we hear from ms. conway are you in agreement. >> we're in agreement. >> i'd like to ask that the next hearing that 9 owner bring with her the confidential tax report i've requested. >> maybe you can discuss that

amongst users we're deciding the continuance. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners yes. i agree for the request for the continuance to get to the bottom of the issues. >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, commissioners. >> okay. so i'll move to continue this to november 5th if it's amenable to our calendar that's great but i think it's manageable. >> there are a few items on the calendar that may go away. >> so moved. >> and i need cards from both of you, we have a motion from the vice president to reschedule all 3 matters 14098 one hundred one and 4 to november 5th on that motion to reschedule all

matters commissioner fung president is absent commissioner honda. >> thank you vote is 3 to zero all 3 matters are rescheduled until a 10 minu. >> welcome back to the september 17, 2014, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 9 which is a hearing request it is on crestline drive we've received a letter for the, llc permit holder for the permit request for the t p n and they decided on july 27th at the time the board voted 4 to one to grant the appeal one the project has xooerld circumstances that will to the protect the san francisco

development and an beneficial ordinance with the francisco that will have an appropriate or inappropriate for an in fill were the san francisco development and 3 the pursuance to article of the san francisco business and tax regulation code considers the properties surrounding that and the appellant it the east side annexed life's blood to erect a building inspection with 4 hundred thousand square feet plus of ground floor area on august 24th we heard it and voted 5 to zero to continue the matter to the call of the chair to await that for possible appeal to the board of supervisors and then on november 20, 2012, the board

requested it to be to the call of the chair for the planning department we'll hear from the requester first who has 3 minutes. >> i called them but they were not able to come i want to. >> he wanted to do some sort of presentation auto a power point presentation. >> i just wanted to show some of the. >> is the mike working. >> we can hold this case off until it's prepared. >> if you remember the project that won't be crucial. >> so my name is herself do the architect for the project i wanted to remind that i did

site of the project is a overgrown number one assessable site a procedural site next to a public steps and the project that we're proposing is to landscape the public right-of-way maintain the stairs in perpetuity and as far as i am concerned the development of a small 4 unit building at the site the design stucco a really a lot of emphasis in fitting the project within the fabric of the neighborhood following the terrace lines and so forth and 235r from eliminating a public small business we're enhancing the public right-of-way that's the way the planning commission

saw it and approved that unanimously voting for the project so i want to mention perhaps to things one is that talking about the lack of small business every neighbor in that neighborhood can access one the minute. >> small business the green small businesses within the city by getting through their front door and going up the steps we're to rehabilitate and the other thing the city is a living organism and the change is insufbl and the city thrives would change that's the city of san francisco it is the general direction and the general plan of the city points out to so i find that some lines that

probably were drawn in a map 60 or 50 years ago should they be sacred considering i'm not part of the dynamic process of change within the city when those lines were set to show there was going to be some kind of small business as a justification of putting a 6 hundred unit development onion 17 acres of the slopes of twin peaks so i would propose that this stays open to, you know, to revi review. >> you have a few seconds. >> sir. >> yes. >> you can use