tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 17, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PST
setup my committees, and we go and talk. the people along sacramento street and california street are vitally interested. i have committees little groups on those streets who are going to talk about the developers of the two big projects. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. albritton, we'll take rebuttal. [ please stand by ]
yes we went to the neighborhood association and went to the protests and fiber in pg&e people were getting ahead of themselves and were called back. the at&t project i'm sure you know about their project light speed fiber project. those are the large refridge rater-sized boxes that go into the street. there was a lawsuit about it, but that is not our diminutive wireless facilities. pleatly different project and structure. different note with small cells. in san francisco and throughout the country, the wire rlsless countries around the world they have an overlay of broad service. it gives you signal but not necessarily the capacity to provide in-had home
and other serve ition our customers demand every year and it doubles every year. the small cell provides service within 500 feet on either sield of the pole in order to provide capacity on top of a macro network. you need both. you can't replace the small cell network with the macro network. that is why we can't put them on an apartment build organize anywhere else. we're machine-i think you know and i don't want to get na into it we have the right to be there. if there is no pole, we have the right to put our own pole, to place a new pole in the street. obviously we work with san francisco to use existing facilities. we can't have trees that grow up around the antennas because it's line of sight second knowledge. the alternative to a tree that we have to go through urban forestry and pay a fee in lieu of a tree. i can answer other questions but i
appear to have run out of time unless you have questions. >> i do. so one of the appellants stated you install them at 2:00 in the morning? >> they weren't our workers. i don't know the time, they were the fiber permit is separate. >> is it the same company? different company? >> i don't know, it may have been extinate or comcast but those are the fiber providers. and pg&e provides power as well and a cutoff switch. they put a cutoff switch in the hand-hold. i understand there was confusion on when this protest period began and ended. that's because we filed the paperwork for protest period for the appeal period to begin but it wasn't actually posted
and mailed by the department until 28 days lais later, something like that. there was confusion -- 28 days dayer something like that. there was confusion that caught the countries. they didn't realize that the appeal period was continuing and it was because of a difference in time when we up loaded the information to begin the field process and when it was actually sent out, the final determination by the department. >> is there a time constraint that your workers can insaul equipment? i feel that 2:00 a.m. is not appropriate. >> i would agree with you. they should be complying with the -- >> what is the time slot that they're supposed to install equipment? >> do you know? >> maybe you can look it up. >> i believe that's 7:00 to 5:00 and
short on weekends. >> because 2:00 a.m. is crazy. >> i would agree with you. that's the first i heard that have incident. >> quiet, please. i guess we'll be seeing you a lot since sb 349 got beat out by the governor. >> yes. and last point is that you probably know that this whole issue of the esthetic rights of the city in subject of t-mobile versus san francisco which is going to the california supreme court. upon my advice, tapt and verizon are not party to that lawsuit but the issue of your rights to esthetics is being reviewed by the supreme court. we can be in the rate of way but it's a question of esthetic rights. >> don't run away so fast. >> will this technology change from
line of sight? >> wireless technology? i have our= he might be able to answer that question. it's line of site technology. it -- it doesn't -- it only travels so far. the frequencies that we're using today are higher frequencies, 5-g and 4-g they carry more data, but don't travel as far. that's why we put the small cells closer to the end user to provide more data. the original analogue went out to sea but newest technologies, higher frequencies and don't travel very far at all. bill, do you want to say anything? >> good evening, bill hammett president
of consultive engineers. the behavior of the frequencies in the bands is line of site. it goes through trees but not building materials. it bounces around. it will work down a street and bounce off the buildings and works its way down the street. penetration is it not-is not good for building materials or other things. >> thank you. i believe commissioner swig had a question. >> can you tell us about the alternative sites you review before settling on this? >> kevin modas can speak to that. this particular pole is unique. at its height, it actually sees over the building 3400. it's at a corner and -- >> i'm sorry quiet please in the back. >> it was designed specifically do that whereas other poles around corner
are lower and would not provide the necessary propagation. kevin, i don't know if you can answer that. >> basically -- i'm kevin moda swrks verizon. verizon r.f. engineer says i need a site at this intersection. we go to the intersection with architects. and look at different poles to see is it blocking windows? is it in front of windows? is there a tree blocking the site? here we looked at this is the first pole we looked at. we thought it was the best location at that intersection because the antenna would be above where the windows were on adjacent property. that building is about 22 feet away from the right-of-way. while the other poles on that street in the immediate area are closer to
buildings. if you go, i think west, the street starts to go down in elevation. sow would lose some signal going west because of that. so that was kind of the reasoning behind this pole selection. >> what about placing it on buildings instead of poles? >> it's tough with the zoning in san san francisco. that is preference seven, the planning department can go to that. it's hard at the get these on residential lots. residential-zoned properties, i should say we've heard in past, residential properties could provide an alternative to placing them on the pole if comparable service -- if the service is acceptable. we hear more of that from planning or would you like to --
>> i would speak to that. we want them at street level. if you're on a building, the signal is gettingget going to get to that street area that we want. >> you said the light pole, even though you got objection from the gallery in the back, that the light pole is taller than the building in which it stands you contradicted yourself. >> that is that subject building. there are other buildings abutting those that are taller than the pole. do you want to speak? >> in 1998, we began an accessory use process in are san francisco where we were allowed to put smaller facilities within a particular design configuration on residential properties. that was recently converted through a code change to allow certain small cell facilities through the planning process. but i have two comments and one is the network is designed in order to provide
this network the necessary small cell service with the least number of nodes or poles when you move one pole, you end up having to move other poles because of the limited 500-foot radius basically of seiveis provide. -- service provided. when you move the facility off of poles and into building)ide=0 areas you affect the network an how it's designed. there are two comments i have to say about that. one, as i mentioned, we have the right to be if the rieft of right-of-way. we have negotiated with the city for this particular design to be in the right-of-way. telephone equipment on poles in the right-of-way. and so we have the right to be there without demonstrating need. secondly is clearly our network is designed in order to provide the most reliable network and service in the
most efficient way that is the design that verizon is bringing forward. the city is not in a position to dictate the technology we use. i have to say, yes, we use small cells in certain circumstances. in order to provide the coverage up and down the street and this is a bi-directional antenna, this is the design that the network engineers worked out to provide the service we're trying to provide. >> in that spirit, this implies that there will be permits being requested for other poles and as we heard from -- i can't remember whether it was public comment or the appellant who said, okay, now they're working with the dpw and planning to put more of these things on other poles which will further impact what we've worked for decades to achieve
which is a continuity and cleanliness of getting away from stuff on poles. so if -- and if this were a house and this type of permitting activity would happen, i think the permitting would surface in the conversation. so rather than being accused of serial permitting and doing something that is less than transparent, what's the issue about just doing it the right way or doing it the -- ore, that would be a judgment doing it the way the neighborhood who invested a tremendous effort in money to do it in a respectful way and sit down with the neighborhood association and create a proper notice that you're going to put material
-- that you're going to request permits for material all over the neighborhood and that you would like to work out a plan. why not do it that way so we're not here in20 times hearing appeals from the presidio heights neighborhood? >> thanks for letting me answer that question. first, i want to say that the entire project the larger project initially went through a ceqa analysis. that ceqa analysis included an analysis of cumulative impact. those issues were reviewed. there is in fact a san francisco case regarding the cumulative impact of these types of facilities where the court determined that where you couldn't see one facility from the next, there wasn't impact from one facility to the next there was no cumulative impact. regarding the overall planning process, we don't apply for these. it sounds like we're going in every
week or month or something and applying for one of these poles. i think you know they're over 400 poles and they're applied in batches for an entire neighborhood which receives hundreds, thousands of notices. we notice within 150 feet of every pole and notice every neighborhood association twice. we notice any protestor twice. we post the poles twice. this is not in a vacuum. we don't post just the pole but the entire street face block with the notices and that's going on p for all the other facilitieses in a polygon. san francisco is certainly one of the most process-laden locations, jurisdictions for this kind of work. so i have to -- i really want to say that there is -- has been a very long and involved and publicly transparent
process to where we are today. that there is substantial notice to, by mail, by posting of these facilities within a neighborhood, there is substantial opportunity for comment and review. dpw dos does tell us to move poles. they tell us there is is not a good pole. among the hundreds approved, there is only a dozen that have been -- of the verizon facilities of this style that come to you. we always experience the concern of immediate neighbors to what i would call public infrastructure. if you were putting this light standard in for a first time or a stop sign there where people gun their engines, that stop sign is important for everyone of the community where the neighbors are
concerned. >> you've answered his question. i have a couple more. how many exition poles do you have in that particular district right now? >> existing poles in that district? >> yes. >> i think we're in the process of applying and moving forward. >> a lot of the poles in the pac heights area are concrete holes. i think it's recently was executed but i would say right now we've probably installed 10 to 12 in the pac heights area. >> and spated or slated what is the number -- anticipated or slated, what is the number of figure you're looking at? >> i don't know because that's is verizon's r.f. proprietary information. that number is probably -- >> can you answer that question?
>> i wish i could. i honestly cannot. i believe there are approximately 30 in the area that are currently -- >> i mean because what i think commissioner swig was alluding to is the communication with the neighborhood and yet, we understand that san francisco is one of the toughest places. we've had over 2000 wireless facility appeals in this body and we were sued as you're probably aware of. as the members of the public in that neighborhood that have spent a lot of time effort and energy in thes eses -- in the esthetics of the neighborhood. instead of you being in front of us 20 or 30 more times, if you can get a map together with the locations and speak with the neighborhood, they're not going to be happy anyway, but the anticipation knowing that these are where the locations are slated to go. and proprietary or not if someone
showed up at 2:00 a.m. in front of my house -- >> yeah. yeah. >> i agree, we have web sites, we have information that we try to push out. we had press campaigns to push out -- >> i'm asking at this point, since you know there is further stuff, please have further communication with the presidio heights neighborhood because those are the questions that i'm sure you'll be in front of this body at least one more time, that 649 did not pass. at which point, those are the questions that we're going to ask and why weren't there communication. >> i'll take to heart and to verizon wireless. we'll discuss -- >> open line of communication. >> yes. >> thank you. >> miss higgens, no rebuttal? okay. and mr. teague, anything further? commissioners unless you have questions for the departments, the matter is
submitted. >> we're in deliberation already at this point. thank you. >> i guess you know -- it's my opinion that the case that was before us on sacramento street was worse than this in terms of you know, the impact. however the designation of sacramento street was no designation. the street has -- this area has the good-view designation. the question is not so much, i think,
the blockage or changing of the views either toward presidio or anywhere else. i think the other portion of that is whether this fixture on a light pole affects the character of that area and i think it does. it's too bad that this particular technology has created a lot of issues in quite a few neighborhoods. it's obviously unnecessary technology, but it's one that i think has not promulgated itself in a conciliatory way. i'm prepared to not support the issuance of this permit.
>> i would agree for the same reason. and i also think there is -- i think there is a noticing issue. and i've spoken about this with regard to the city department in charge of working with the utilities. that i think that they are negligent until their bee may havier and sensitivity to specific neighborhoods. this is a historic neighborhood. this is a neighborhood that has taken above and beyond action and subsidized -- subsidized out of their own pockets the city of san francisco to continue the beautification and specific personality of their neighborhood. and the city department turns their back and absolutely turns a blind eye to what
is a rather heroic effort or certainly a city patriotic effort to keep san francisco -- a pry san francisco neighborhood at -- primary san francisco neighborhood at a distinctive level. the success of the light poles was there because there was proper noticing. it involved the city -- sorry the presidio heights neighborhood organization who testified in front of us just now that they are not opposed to -- this is not a slam dunk. they're not opposed to having verizon installations in the neighborhood. he said that. but he'd like to work together in a sense to get that there will so the personality of the neighborhood so
the branding of the neighborhood, so the historic nature of the neighborhood may be preserved. on that ex-testimony extemporaneous diatribe i support commissioner fung for the same reason. >> so i've been on the board a little longer than rick. in five years i've seen thousands of these cases. as the counselor explained at&t boxs were extremely intrusive. we have fought timelessly on behalf of the citizens to the point where we were litigated against. i believe we lost that. i commend this neighborhood for the ability for having the esthetics, beautiful homes and having the resources to put their services underground.
but at the same time, you know, our city is 170 years old. i think every house in every district is actually precious. and not all districts have the ability to put their services underground. i'm kind of torn. i think that if there is a facility that goes on top of a pole this is probably the least intrusive in compares ton what i've seen over the last five years. so i'm at this point not sure which way i'll go. >> i would -- >> is that a question of the attorney? is it correct that verizon has the right to put a pole -- let's say a pole wasn't there, that they have a right to put a pole there and put it up on their pole is that right? >> i have not researched that specific question.
but i trust the council's opinion on that topic. they have a right to be in the rate v right-of-way. >> the law allows them to be if the public right-of-way. yes. >> i would suggest that, again there is not pushback from the appeal ant. appellant. the appellant is commenting on this one pole and he indicated that as with other developers of buildings and technology that the neighborhood is open and willing to accommodate a -- the reasonable development of new technologies. that would be an organized way to
put a grid of these devices throughout presidio heights. i think what we're -- what i would like to -- and that requires proper noticing of the entire neighborhood, really the macro neighborhood and a plan so it doesn't become health scelter. and defeat the purpose of what -- what -- helter-skelter and making sure haul their light stanchions are exactly the same. that;mb is why i think we should reject this and sustain the personality -- protect the personality of the neighborhood and push verizon to put together a plan with the neighborhood association and the neighbors in a macro sense.
>> so what about the richmond district or sunset district or excelsior district? should they mail out and reach out to the district each time they put a pole up? >> that's where the character and personality of this district is different than those and also in those districts, those districts are already blighted with -- we talked about this many times -- blighted with horrible wooden telei don't know tele-- telephone poles and other items. it's like comparing apples and vegetables. >> city attorney. >> i would want o caution the board that you're not a legislative body. here to the extent there is an issue of notice i haven't heard evidence that they did not comply with the required noticing of the ordinance.
i don't think this board is not in a position to place a new requirement on verizon or any other flel communications provider to engage in new noticing that they're not required by ordinance. >> i was editorializing but what i was saying was in support of commissioner fung's point of view which is based on changing the character and penalty -- differenting the personality of a historic neighborhood. that's the basis on which i would support a motion. >> commissioners, just another peeves information we need to consider. if you have the votes or you may have the support for granting this appeal i would ask you to consider whether you may want to have written findings adopted in support of it. instead of voting on a motion, if one is made, to grant this appeal, i would ask you to consider -- >> the motion of intent?
>> motion of intent, correct. >> i'll make a motion of intent to grant the appeal on the basis that planning determination of no impact was incorrect. >> and with the -- vice president, would that be to continue this item to a later date to allow the adoption of findings to support that is it. >> depending on where the vote goes. >> it should be clear that it's a motion of intent and not an action you're taking. >> then i would add to that the development of -- deliberation -- >> continue this to january 17th.
>> so then there is a motion from the vice president to continue this item to january 17th and that is based on an intent to grant the appeal because the planning department's assessment of no impact was incorrect. that would be for the drafting and adoption of findings at a later date. is that correct? >> that is my motion. >> on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> no. >> president honda. >> no. >> commissioner wilson. >> no. >> and commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion fails with a vote of 2-3. lacking any other motion, the appeal would be denied and the permit upheld by default. okay. president hop da shall i call next
item? >> yes. >> so i will move on. we're on item five which is a rehearing request. subject property 2226 green street. the requester is barbara lawrence and she's asking that a rehearing be granted of 17-125, barynts versus department of building inspection decided october 18th 2017. they voted 4-0-1 with commissioner wilson absent. the project is 5'6" infill at the existing fourth floor. deck extension. kitchen renovation, remove trellis. i know when a similar matter was before the board last week, commissioner said she was ready to proceed and i assume she is still prepared. we have three minutes for this request.
>> good evening and welcome back. >> thank you. before you start my three minutes, i had a point of order. i think i inadvertently gave false information. when i looked it up it implied i visit site but i visit it once a week. it's our family home. then i had a question. can it be noted in the record that mr. lastly has not taken the oath once again. >> you can use your three minutes, if you'd like to include that in your statements. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to present this new information. neighbors knew that this deck wasn't right and it's taken us a year to locate the evidence to prove that. there have been many ambiguities and discrepancies along the way and they've explained these as mistakes but the great number of the mistakes shows
desee the. de-- deceit. as you can see, this building -- this is the building we're talking about. as you can see, it stands out. neighbors know it's not legal. only the project sponsors were bold enough to open up this can of womples. worms. this floor is illegal. the fourth floor has no permit history. it was built between 1956 and 1964 without a permit and per city code only repairs are allowed. we can guess at what is represented in the old aerial photos but the permit is clear, in 1956 there were three floors, in 1964 there were four. no permit. my second new evidence is this image
that was submitted by the project sponsors to the planning commission. here is that image but with the correct square footage gathered from actual permit records google map and san francisco aerial photographs. the size of the deck is larger than neighboring decks. it can accommodate bar cue kfl music that belong in commercial neighborhoods but not residential. that's why no other deck of this size has been approved in our neighborhood. these false measurements were submitted to the planning commission as fact and a main consideration in the planning commission's approval of this deck. only small decks have been approved previous to this one. the deck will set an unwanted precedent in this neighborhood and open a can of worms. in conclusion, this deck had should
not be allowed. i've been over-spent and over-lawyered pri theby the project sponsors. this is a democracy, it is not an aristocracy. we'd like to preserve our neighborhood for pos pert. please do not allow this entertainment deck to be -- pos posterity. please don't allow this deck to be built. >> i believe you presented last hearing a single sheet of paper that indicate it was one of four sheets youd a that the building made it illegal. >> that was another neighbor who did that. >> my same question. >> that was not mine. but i'm happy to show you the permits that mr. sanchez sent me yesterday. >> i'll wait for the department to clear that up for me.
>> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening and welcome. >> thanks. good evening, my name is maigen lastly, my shus traveling for work so he's unable to be here tond. miss lawrence just reviewed -- most is not in her brief. if you read her brief, her opening statement is "i feel i have not presented my case well and i would like a chance to reiterate it." that's not what in forum is for. in her remarks this evening she's calling our building an illegal structure. this is not new information as both the requesters brought this up before our hearinghearing in april. and there was a complaint filed filed with dbi then also. this has been reviewed over and over and over by both planning and building and they have come back time and time again to say there is no issue. more importantly if not being new
information it's factually incorrect. i'm quoting the building department -- i'm hope the building department can clear that up. i have a quick summary on the history of the building. both 1938 there is an aerial photograph of the building at the current height. 1950 there a map. 1956 and 57 there was a permit filed which miss lawrence referred to referring to the building at 50 feet but it's an anomaly. 195 had there is a permit totaling four storeys. 1973 the same thing. 1981 also. from is the inspection report that found the building to contain the four storeys and the top floor is legal.
i'm surprised we're here and talking about the legality of our building. my husband and i are tired. this is -- this received a level of scrutiny that i think projects of this scope have not received before. so i don't know how we've gotten here. if you look at the original d.r. request from miss lawrence to p and we've protected her views. we have a three foot high wall around our roof. there is no penthouse stair scais. staircase. there is no manifest injustice and no new information and my husband and i hope we can finish the remodel and move into our home. >> do you have a 3-r report? >> i'm not sure what that is actually. i have a fer mitts that mr. sanchez
-- permits that mr. sanchez sent. >> that's okay. we'll ask the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. teague. >> good evening president honda, commissioners, cory teague from planning department staff. the planning department has reviewed the appellant's request and found it does not comply for the request. it does not contain any new information that has not been provided on this matter. last we be the other appellant raised questions. to support their claim, they provided one page ever a four-page document stating that the top floor was not legally constructed. they reviewed records and found the document in its entirety. upon reviewing the report based on a site inspection in further ans furtherance of a condominium, they found that the top
floor was illegal. they cited 13 minor items for correction. the report was a fached to per -- attached to the permit. top floor of the building has existed since at least 1935 although there is other evidence that it was earlier. it appearses on the 1950 sanborn map. they cite it three storeys over basement. the appellant cited two per pits from the 1950s stated two-storey over basement. the balance of evidence including the 1981 report support the legality of the structure. the appellant has been informed to pursue the matter furd with dbi as they have the jurisdiction over legality of struck tours. if they find the property is in violation, they'll require it be brought
into compliance. i'm failing available for any questions you have. >> i think you know that was a new item brought up last week. there was no substantial answer from either the permit holder or the department. so it would have been relatively easy to demonstrate and if we had something that was conclusive. but neither side representative at the hearing didn't answer the question either. >> my understanding is that one of four pages was presented last week at the hearing. i can't speak as to why they didn't provide all four pages. but since then, we did find the entire document. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy anything? >> good evening inspector duffy. >> good evening. prezi don't have too much to add.
i did see the e-mails that mr. sanchez sent this week. i have to say they were very very thorough. he spent a lot of time investigating this. there was quite a lot of evidence there. my experience as well at dbi is that -- probably in the 19 oos it was the same, when people get permits there, it's like the roofing contractor could get the story wrong. dbi could issue the permit. it depends on what the permits were for but i'm confident this building has three storeys and a basement. a condo process would involve a lot of research. there are cfcs and lawyers involved. like -- think what i'm trying to say it's pretty thorough and i think the building is what is it should be is
three storeys and a basement. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted.fké >> to be consistent with last week i would conclude as well that there is no new evidence and no manifest injustice i would move to deny the rehearing request. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the request on the motion. vice president fung. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion pass dz passes 5-0 and the request is denied. >> we're going to [gavel] welcome back to the november 15, 2017
meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we're on 16- 018.r[6;í w property at 95 st. germain avenue. after the denial of a front yard variance to increase the height of the garage and reduce the front setback at the first and second story to 1'01"0. this matter was heard on july 19, 2017 it's on for further hearing today. the board voted on july 19th 5-0 to allow time for the appeal -- appellants to work to resolve their dispute with the neighbors at 99 st. 99 st. germain and draft findings and support of accurate plans could be submitted to the board. with the president's consent, i think we can give three minutes to each side
since the matter was heard and take public comment. we'll start with the appellants. >> good evening and welcome back. >> president honda, commissioners and members of the board. we wish to request that you reconsider our variance application now entering the third almost fourth year. may i recap and put out six facts. number one, an elevator for us is no longer -- bona fide need. for this asian couple. my wife las a condition that worsened with age. there is no cure. i am currently suffering from a sprained ankle from a weak left knee. these issues with discuss. with all our
neighbors. two, i work diligently with the planning department and design committee to bring forth our current plan. after three iterations, four years most recently with a preservation architect including multiple light and view studies, the zoning administrator have accepted our proposals. we made multiple concessions over the years. with open discussion via their lawyer, now, four, the old elevator is structurally deficient and malfunctioning obsolete. made by multiple behaviors of our neighbor company our shared neighbor without our consent or city permits.
our most recent hired engineer investigated a possibility of an ada elevator. any elevator system on this location falls short. i will save time for my counselors. >> thank you. welcome mr. patterson. >> thank you president honda. this is an elevator variance for qualified disability under the americans with disabilities act supported by the planning department. at the last hearing, if i can have the overhead please -- at the last hearing, the board expressed concern that there is an existing tower that will be need to be removed to place the new elevator and have enough room for the stairs. these are two different issues.
they're supposed to be dealt with at the building permit stage. most importantly, the tower has toob demolished with a new n.o.v. issued today regarding an extremely dangerous condition as dismantled by the neighbors next door. >> thank you but i have questions. as as has been before us several times and many continuances from both sides, my memory is not so good. with the new struck you're structure or new elevator is it completely in their property now? >> completely in their property. >> you're not euing the easement in any form. >> that's correct, i'll show you on the plans. in a photo may be helpful. -- in fact, a photo may be helpful.
the existing elevator is in this area. >> that's fine. a already more -- sorry. thank you. >> this is my client's property here. the neighbors who are protesting the variance are here next door left hand/right hand houses with an existing elevator tower in the middle shared between the two properties. this is a photo of it here. we need to ensure we have enough space for stairs. as we add the new disability elevator here we'll need to expand the stairs over still on the property but expand
them into this corner where the existing defunct elevator tower is. that tower has to be removed. it's a dangerous condition, rotten. but, yes to answer your question is entirely on this property. >> and one last question. the neighbor is saying that they have the easement for that. and you're saying now it's entirely on your client's property? >> the neighbor is saying they have an easement for this elevator tower. >> which you are removing to get your stair in. >> yes, that's correct. the legal doctrine of issue is abandonment of issue. the neighbors have taken affirmative
action to permanently remove the elevator that's there. it's been torn out. i've shown photos in your packet. the tower itself is rotten. as the neighbor's attorney has stated in thinks briefing may 17 brefg on the 17 briefing on the overhead, it can't be replaced with a modern elevator. it's too narrow. it's impossible to replace with a new elevator. >> thank you mr. patterson. i apologize, i had to -- i forgot to make a disclosure. i'm a partner in a project that hired rubin and junius as council. it will not have any effect on my decision this evening. >> you can speak on public comment, but we can hear from mr. teague first.
mr. teague. >> good evening, again cory teague. i would reiterate the carryover from the last hearing that the zoning administrator supports the issuance of a variance for the revised plan for the new elevator. i'm available for any questions. >> that's a front yard setback setback variance. >> correct. front setback vair yns. >> thank you. >> now we can public comment. mr. silverman, if you'd lierk to speak you can do so now. -- if you'd like to speak, you can do so now. >> good evening, president honda and commissioners. david silverman. i work with the owners of adjacent home. if i can get the overhead.
just to refresh your memories from the last hearing this is the gauthier's home over here. this the yee's home. this is the easement in between that has the tower. contrary to what mr. patterson just told you, the -- excuse me -- dbi has issued a notice to the gauthier's to repair the tower, not to demolish it. it's a big difference. what the yees are proposing is to build an elevator here that would go to about here in the middle of their stairway. the commission advised them at the last hearing that they could not do that because this needs to be 36 inches wide and the elevator would cause the stairway to not comply with the building code.
that wasn't addressed in any of the comments i heard today. this is another photo. i don't know if you can see it, but they actually put up a string here that goes down the middle of their stairs to show where the elevator would go. this is the encroachment into the front setback where these lines are. this is a photograph of the walkway that leads into the elevator at the second storey. this is as it looked at the last hearing. them is a photograph of the way it looks this morning. -- looked this morning after a number of wooden cross beams were mysteriously
ripped out. this will is a photo showing the gauthier's window. at their living room. the elevator would cover this and this. thus cutting off their light -- access to light and air. so in closing, i have not heard anything from the yees that would deal with their problem that came up at the last hearing. and we had a mediation about this, we brought in an architect who offered them several different plans -- >> your time is out,. >> mr. silverman, is that the only window in the living room?
>> ' invite lisa gauthier up to speak about her living room. >> my name is lisa gauthier at 99 st. germain. it's the kitchen. and a bedroom above it. so as you can see -- you can't see it. put it over. so this is their string that you can see here. then this is our kitchen and then the bedroom is right above it. the tower that is there now that we'd like to repair is -- that's the easement. they want to build a second -- they want to build a third story. storey. we went to mediation and tried to help them to put an elevator inside their
house that would hit the half/%dlql floor weir ip kitchen and bathroom is because their house is exactly like ours. it hits their living roosm and master bedroom. it doesn't hit the middle floor which is half a floor inside with the kitchen and bathroom. it does, however that space is north facing on twin peaks. it's for them a great addition to the golden gate bridge. but for us, it doesn't affect our view at all. to us, it's to our east. but it does look into our kids' bedroom and blocks=]mb]%4 gn]rtzbp from our dark kitchen. >> commissioner fung. any more questions? >> i have a question. so i'm sure that this is been answered before. when is the last time that elevator has been functional? >> so i think many years ago. we've been trying to work on this
for many years. we approached them years ago. we said we'd pay for the lawyers an demolish it. they said no, it would grandfather in their variance and we couldn't destroy the elevator so we did our stairs over nicenicely and around the old elevator -- >> it never worked? >> it worked for a few years. >> when was the last time worked? what year? >> i don't know. >> 10 years? 20 years? >> i don't know. seven yoors. >> okay. is that an elevator? >> it was an elevator, yes. >> i heard that you mentioned that you had someone take a look at it to done vert it to a dumb waiter so you'd -- convert it from a dumb waiter to an elevator? >> the easement allows us to be able
to repair it and we can bring up luggage and groceries and everything. it's not particularly helpful for -- i've been told ada doesn't apply because it's not an apartment building, it's two single homes. there are lots of people on our block who want elevators and they put them inside their house in a way that reaches the back parts of their house. we brought our architect to show them there are lots of ways to do it, you don't need a variance. they didn't want to break -- >> thank you. thank you. i've let you go on for quite a while. you answered my question, thank you very much. please stand by. please stand by.