community. take a breath. several committee members have committed to do the above research and develop tax messaging samples for the committee to review at our next meeting. this concludes my ddpc report; i would like to remind members of the public and organizations that our group now meets the first friday of every other month; the next scheduled meeting is on january 4, 2013, 1-3:30 p.m. room 421 at city hall. we hope to see you there. >> chair: thank you very much. councilmember senhaux. our next item, report from the smpta, multi-motor accessibility advisory committee presented by councilmember wong.

>> councilmember wong: today i will update the council and the public of two projects. podesta and accessible signals; -- provided information about pedestrian signals referred to as apc. special pedestrian pushbuttons at intersections to visually impaired, audible speech and tactile messages. apms are currently placed at 129 intersections. 29 to be installed in the next 2-3 years. how aps are prioritized? crosswalk length program for

visually impaired. city/public programs. proximity to transit facility. speed limit. examples of upcoming aps installation locations. 19th ave. and l inconln way. 25th ave. at - . sometimes people cannot hear the countdown. these devices can be adjusted by staff. number two, complete streets. this project is in early-stage.

seeks to implement aesthetic and safety improvements or users of -- street between mcallister and union streets. in accordance with the city transit policy, improvements will primarily focus on - polk street. it is slated to be resurfaced and repaved sometime in 2015. saturday, december 1, 2012, an open house will reveal conceptual designs. time and location to be determined. the next sfmta meeting is scheduled for thursday, december 20, 2012, at sfmta headquarters located at -- the

corner of south and -- 7th floor. i wish everybody a happy thanksgiving. thank you. >> chair: we have - we are skipping down public comment. seeing none. information items from staff? seeing none, item 14 is discussion item. i have one announcement. i would like to say quickly, ctap, who distributes accessible telephones the blind and deaf phones, they are located across the bay, they're coming to san francisco for distribution at the hearing and speech center on dec. 14th. this contact bob davies at the hearing and speech center if

you would like to return your equipment. find out what equipment is available to you. we don't always have the opportunity in san francisco. is a great opportunity. it is a joint effort of the speech center and hearing loss association of san francisco. any other announcements? seeing none, may i suggest we adjourn. we are adjourned. (gavel)

board's executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez is here and he is is zoning administrator representing the planning commission. joseph duffy is here, representing the department of building inspection and also joined from the environmental

section of the department of public health. if you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that all turn off all cell phones and proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board holds the presentation are as follows. appellants and permit holders and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals people affiliated with these parties must include the comments in the three or seven minute periods. the members who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not prior to present a card. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of

the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side. if you have questions requesting a rehearing, please speak to the board staff during the break after the meeting or all the board office term morning 1650 mission street. and this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase from sfgtv.

it. >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you abouter to give should be the truth, the whole truth is nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> president, and commissioners we have one housekeeping item this has to do with item number eight this is an appeal of the sidewalk landscaping permit. and they have canceled the permit at the permit holding request and this has been

dismissed and will not be heard this morning, so we will move to item number one, this is for members of the public wishing to speak. no comment there, let's move to item number two. which is commissioners comments and questions, is there any comments? >> only that i just received notice that commissioner hurtado will be late in a work emergency and will try to be here in the next 15 minutes. >> any public comment on this item? >> seeing, none, we will move on to item number three which is the consideration and possibility adoption of the board's meeting minutes of its meeting of november 7, 2012. >> madam director on item ten, could the vote be changed to show it is 301?

>> thank you, for that correction. >> if there is any public comment? >> if you could could please call the roll? >> we have a motion to adopt the november 7, 2012 minutes as amended. on that, commission hwang? >> aye. >> we will move to 4 a, i understand that the attorney and we could move forward it >> okay, this is 4 a and two rehearing requests, at 2750 larkin street and the board received a letter from ellman

and huangfu requesting rehearing of appeals 12-090 and 091 decided on october 17th, at that time the board voted 4-1 with one vacancy to up hold the subject permit on the basis that it is code compliant. permit holder is peter fento, and the project to demolish the rear wall building new ad dish to the rear while conforming to the residential design guidelines by stepping back in

the two directions.

>> good evening, commissioners, and the attorney on behalf of the appellants, seligmam and i am here here today to ask for a rehearing and that the subject permit be set aside until all of the refractions related to the property have been cured. this request is based on a flurry of last-minute applications that were filed after our october 17th hearing. >> therefore, if under the new materials, not previously in evidence, of the rehearing request. so on november 9th, the permit applicant filed filed, to change a flat roof to roof deck increasing the railing height and the construction of

the wall. and the next slide just is confirmation that the november 9th permit was filed. >> this board must take this and remove and correct. failure to grant the rehearing will ... the roof deck issue which if those 2010 permit is approved, as is, it would essentially legalize the roof deck permit even though the sponsor has filed a separate

permit ap. and again, if approved as is, the permit holder will have no reason to proceed with 29012 permit and could withdraw the permit without going through the proper review channels. pat will go through the discreptcies between the two site plans. >> so the basis of a rehearing are justice and new evidence not in fact. the manifest in justice, he saw nothing wrong with ex-saouming through the garage. that sin correct. the code separation does not allow exiting from a garage into a private dead room or back. a studio apartment is the bedroom. california building code section 1004 exit does not allowing exiting through the garage. residential code 123-11.1 also does not allow for exiting a garage. if you look at the 2002 permit,

it clearly shows that it had an exit corridor, after the testimony they looked at the 2002 drawings and said where is the exit corridor and i believe that the representative were in a process of issuing it until the sponsor said that we took it out or someone took it out and filed for a permit yesterday and we are putting it back. secondly we brought up the issue of the roof deck. the roof deck goes around and the roof deck is here. the building permit initiated a review and yesterday, the project sponsor fesed up that nowhere on the 2002 drawings was a roof deck, they are now filing for a permit. so that is the permit that they pulled yesterday. the last issue, which is a more important issue is the exiting requirement. the client did not plain explain it very well. but you need in 2002 to have two exits from the third floor,

if you want to go to the current code which is the 2007 for the project. you can delete that second exit but you have to comply with all of the requirements of the 2007 code. and in 2007 there was a major change in the safety standards where the sprinkler fitters put in an emergency order changing that instead of a second exit you could sprinkle the building. where is the second exit from the third floor, they were questioning how that happened. now the problem is, when you compare the current set of drawings that have been submitted, and the 2002 drawings i forgot to show the second egress, i think that the building department is going to be looking at these draws more carefully, now there are three things that are problematic with these drawings, where is the exit and where is the roof deck and what is the second

egress from the third floor. and so we are asking for a request for a hearing on manifest and justice, the testimony two weeks ago, you were grossly misled about the accuracy of these drawings, if you don't approve this, then effectively you are legalizing the roof deck that is currently there, because the current permit has been in front of you. and you guys taking an action, which we don't have action tonight. all that we can do is ask for a rehearing. the drawings don't match, they don't match the exiting on the kur he want condition of the drawings, and this drawing is the last cfc. so if you want to remove the

second egress you would to sprinkle the building that is what we asked for last time. the way that these things can be addressed is that you take the rehearing and you fix it. we can't do that now. all that we are asking for you to do is fix the manifest and justice of the last hearing.

>> we good evening, i am here

with high colleague who we represent the permit holders and respond ans the fentins. i am going to address and then miss kid will take over to discuss the things in the brief. if you recall when we were here last time two days before the prior hearing, the counsel it filed two complaints about things that have been done in 2010. tonight they are here to tell you that the permit applications that were filed to address the complaints that were separate from the issues that were before you here. what is before you tonight and what was before you at the original hearing was the site permit that this 2012 site permit. the permit holders have filed the permit applications which are separate issues and those are new evidence with respect to what is properly before you

here tonight. and i submit that i do not believe that they will demonstrate to you that they have any new evidence and certainly no manifest in justice has been done, they are simply here tonight because they do not like the results. there is no new evidence and that is the standard and there is month manifest in justice and i would like to turn it over to miss kid from my office to go over the things that were mentioned in their brief tonight. thank you. >> thank you. as you know we are here again today in connection with the building permit which was denied on the permits. appellant is seeking to relitigate. they have not offered any new evidence to support this rehearing request. as you know article five section 6 states that motion hearings should not be made by the board except that it is shown that new or different

circumstances have arisen. they are required to submit new information. they raised four arguments in the brief, these do not contain new facts. the information that appellants site was not only available at the time of the hearing but also presented to and evaluated by the board. and in some instances their own experts weighed in. the fact that they have filed this rehearing request not because new or different material facts have arisen but dissatisfied with the out come. the fact is that they are dissatisfied with the out come, excuse me. we respectfully submit that the fact that the hearing is not resolved in one's favor the fact that you are not satisfied is not grounds for a rehearing. the first is that it is warranted that the permit was submitted to the board at the hearing. however the board rules are clear on this point, article five section 1 s states, photographs, maps and plans and drawings may be used in

presentation and submitted at the hearing. more over, under article 5 section 6, where a hearing is not appropriate where the information was not available at the time of the hearing. it has been part of the record since 2003 and was readily available had they engaged in due diligence, the permit was not new evidence. in the second argument they content that the subbasement level did not meet the requirement of the building code this was discussed at length on october 17th as well as the experts on both sides. here they have presented in new facts or evidence. they are simply trying to reengage the board on an issue that has already been decided. third they contend that it should not have been issued because of the discovery by ddi made after the hearing. now since we submitted our written response last thursday, it has come to our attention that there was no site inspection after the hearing

and our project managers who are here today, and if you like to hear from them they can testify that there was no inspection after the hearing. we do apologize for not bringing this to your attention sooner, but needless to say we did not expect an inaccuracy in the appellant's brief. >> there was an inspection prior to the hearing. as you may recall mr. duffy discussed the results of this at the hearing and the board had the question to question him. again, this site inspection is not new evidence because of it occurred before the hearing and was discussed at the hearing. >> as you heard from apell ent's counsel permits were accepted yesterday to correct the discreptcies. and i understand that these applications are under consideration by the planning department. again, these are applications made in response to complaints, not in response to the site

permit or to this appeal. appellant's final argument is a reiteration of an argument made by the board on october 17th. they contend that the house of the non-conforming section, section 181 deals with non-conforming uses it is a residential use in a res dental district. appellant offered no information that was unavailable at the time of the hearing to support this argument. >> in closing, it is abundantly clear that they have not offered a shred of information that was discussed at the hearing or not readily available to them prior to the hearing. we request that you deny this rehearing request for failing to make the required showing. our team is here to answer any questions that you might have,

thank you. >> thank you. anything from the departments? mr. duffy? it looks like you are standing up first? >> good evening commissioners, nothing apart from what you have heard, the roof deck issue and the wall that is separating the garage are from the hallway and a new hallway that has been filed, thankfully and that will make it a legal exit, which is better than what they were... i think that they were going to sprinkle the garage or something like that. we did find that there should have been a wall there whether it was taken out by the previous owners or the new owners it is going to be put back and i think that they are quite willing to do it. i didn't have to fight them to get it done they signed the permit themselves and if any of the commissioners have any questions on the case? >> mr. duff