>> good evening and welcome to the february 13, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is president chris hwang and joined by commissioner frank fung and arcelia hurtado and darryl honda and ann lazarus is absent this evening and we have our staff joining us this evening. i am cynthia goldstein. i am the board's executive director and are joined with want dids that have cases before the board tonight.

scott sanchez is here. john quan is here management of the public works. jarvis is here with taxis and municipal services and katherine markum is here from the san francisco police department department bureau. at this time if you could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board rules of presentation are as follows. each side has even minutes to present their case and people affiliated with the parties must be in this

time and members of the public have three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the members members are asked but not required to speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. we welcome your suggestions. there are customer satisfaction car cards as well. if you have a question about rules or schedules please talk to board staff after the meeting or during a break and the office is located on mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television sfgtv cable channel 78 and d.v.d's of this meeting are available for purchase

directly from sfgtv. thank you for your attention. at this time we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at tonight's hearings please stand, raise your right hand and i "i do" after being affirmed. notice any member may speak pursuant to the rights in the sunshine ordinance and the administrative code. thank you. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. we will move to item number one which is public comment for any member of the public that would like to speak

on an item that is not on the calendar. seeing none. item two is commissioner comments. >> am confirming they will miss the march 6 meeting due to business out of the country. >> thank you. any public comment on item number two? >> i'm going to advise i will be done and also due to business. >> is the adoption of the board's minutes for january 16, 2013. commissioners.

>> move to adopt. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none mr. pachico. call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the january 16, 2013 minutes commissioner fung. >> aye. >> thank you. commissioner hurtado. >> i was not present at that meeting. >> you still need to vote. >> okay. so i will move to adopt them. >> okay. aye. >> move to adopt. >> aye, and vice president is absent . commissioner honda. thank you the vote is four to zero. those minutes are adopted. thank you. >> okay. thank you. so then calling the first item under item four our addendum calendar and the jurisdiction request at

subject property at 669 san jose avenue. the board received a letter from vassiliki moulas and take jurisdiction over the application which was issued on august 31, 2012. the appeal period ended at that time and the request was filed at the office. is the requester in the room? please step forward. three minutes to present your case to the board. >> i will vassiliki moulas. and i am here today for -- i don't

want to turn down the apartment because my older son had a stroke three years ago, and i need that space for him, so i want to be on your next calendar or your next hearing. >> anything further? okay. we can hear from the department of building inspection, mr. dufty. >> good evening commissioners. joel dufty, dbi. this permit was obtained for a notice of violation. we received a complaint about the rear studio at the building. we issued two notices of violation and an

order of abatement has been issued and posted on the property on december 6, 2012. we generally like to keep this in place and get the work done. it appears that the construction was done many, many years ago because there was no penalty on the violation which we normally said the work was done pre-1960 so i am available for any questions. >> have you received any response from the requester from the notices of violation? >> only that they came in and got their permits to comply with it but i didn't receive anything. they acted on the notice of violation to pull the permit and pay the permit to keep the illegal studio apartment. it's illegal with

the studio in the year on the ground floor. >> so you didn't engage in that conversation? >> no, not me personally. if they came to the department but i'm not aware of it. >> it's illegal because it has a full kitchen? >> let me see what the notice of violation stated. the inspector raymond bayor and apartment without a permit. when we say that we presume there are cooking facilities in that the area. it doesn't say on the notes but he referred to it that way without cooking facilities at that area. that is standard. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible] the kitchen non warranted or the whole space non warranted at this point? >> i don't have that information with the violation. it just states on the violation and studio apartment on ground floor and i'm not sure if there are rooms there or not. >> do we have permit history on the property? >> not that i know of and like i said i think the work was done years ago because there was no penalty or violation but it is used for a studio apartment in a two unit building so technically it's illegal third dwelling unit in the apartment. >> okay. according to the violation if they remove the kitchen would that comply with the nov? >> well, i have seen in the past in this situation where you could file a permit to remove the illegal cooking facilities and legalize the rooms on the ground floor for maybe a living

room -- >> family room. >> a family room, a studdie. people do that all the time. we ask for them to file to legalize or remove the studio so they chose -- the permit was to remove the illegal construction. sometimes there is ventilation and all of the egress from a bedroom and hard to accomplish that but sometimes people legalize it as a storage room. >> so when the inspector inspected the property did he note if there was conforming light and air? >> no. we typically get that on the permit that comes in later and people need to hire someone to see if it's possible to legalize it. storage rooms is what we see if they can't meet the requirements. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening president hwang, members of the board. scott sanchez planning department and this is located in a dwelling district and two maximum units are allowed and listed as a two unit building so they're not able to legalize a third unit. i would note since the inspector mentioned the work had been there for quite some time while the san born property shows for two also and r3 and the dwelling unit for the lot area so it's conceivable prior to that time they could have had three dwelling units on the property so that is information i wanted to share, but currently legally we couldn't legalize a

third unit at the property. i am available for any questions. >> is there any public comment? >> good evening board. jerry brown. i am actually the agent for the project -- >> mr. brown your time is under the time allotted the requester. >> sorry about that. >> that's okay. any other public comment? okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, commissioners i would allow them to have their say here and allow us to see if we can sort through this a little bit at least here the pertinent information because what is included in the brief and in the presentation does not provide us enough information to make any type of determination, but i

would vote for to take jurisdiction on this case. >> i agree. >> i agree with that as well. >> i will move to grant jurisdiction. >> okay. if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion from the president to grant this jurisdiction request. on that motion commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is four to zero and the requester has a new five day appeal period that ends this tuesday because of president's day. thank you. >> thank you. calling 4b which is a rehearing request. the subject property is at 800 brotherhood way. the board received a letter from quentin kopp for appeal of kopp,

l.a.i.c. et al. vs. za decided on january 9, 2013. at that time the board voted four to zero to one, president absent and zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion. the determination is brotherhood way llc and notes that under the motion for a residential planned unit development with up to 182 dwelling units at the subject property which was a moved on may 19, 2005 is still valid. mr. kopp you have three minutes. >> first i wanted to say i reviewed the meeting that i missed and i am able to sit and make a decision today. >> before the gong goes down i want to thank ms. goldstein and

the people that work in the board of appeals office for their helpfulness and their kindness since we first filed an appeal in december, and i want to ask -- i want to note first that again they're only four out of five board of appeals members present which again recommends that this be postponed until all five members of the board are here and present. i make that request madam president. >> your requesting to continue your request for a rehearing to date when all five of us are here? >> that's correct which presumably would be the next meeting of the board. >> and the reason is solely because there are four of us here? >> that is correct. the reason is based upon due process to be

heard by a appellate tribunal without all members presents constitutes a deprivation of due process. >> well, i have my own opinion of that argument, and we do have our own process here. i'm wondering what prejudice it would be to postpone for one week? what's the prejudice here? >> to the determination holders i suppose it's the prejudice -- >> it's being held up. >> the letter of determination is suspended until -- >> oh it is. i thought the last decision released. okay. i don't think the basis that you've stated is sufficient to move it another week. >> it will be noted for the record that there are only four of the five members of the board of appeals members present and again before the gong goes down

to my friend from hastings has everybody who is present of the four who are present read our brief in support of the request for rehearing? >> [inaudible] >> may i have an answer to that question? >> i don't think it is for us to state for you whether we have read the briefs or not. i think that's not for us to communicate to you here. you have made your submission. we have received it. >> it's shameful not to be able to answer a question as to whether briefs which are encouraged and your rules have been read. it becomes an idle

gesture, an idle act of the not only was the president absent on that date but thereby lost interaction with him and the benefits and comments by her. you never secondly disclosed those three who were present whether or not you read the brief which your rules encouraged us to take time and effort to file. you never responded to the matter of illegal action by the dismissed zoning administrator who on november seven, 2008 unilaterally changed a fundamental condition in violation of the san francisco planning code without notice to the neighbors, us. unlike all

four other letters of determination issued by that particular zoning administration. and a rebuilt park merced with 8,900 units, another the 3,000 units that exist now, and 18,000 more or less people residing there, not the 6,000 who reside there now requires a new environmental review. that is not eight years old but which considers current conditions. one of those is the approved permit for the rebuilding of park merced. a rehearing is imimperative in these circumstances to present

manifest injustice, violation of the san francisco planning code by a then zoning administrator and a deprivation of due process to tax paying residents of the city and county of san francisco. >> [inaudible] >> thank you commissioners. steve betel on behalf of the permit holder. we are asking to you deny the request for rehearing. the standard for rehearing are new and different material facts or circumstances have a risen or such facts or circumstances could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. there is nothing in the testimony tonight that establishes those things. first of all as you know you

had a quorum on january 9 with 4 members. your rules that are universally applied indicate four members may conduct business of this board, and you only delay or continue matters if the presence of the fifth commissioner would have affected the outcome. in this case the vote was four-zero to deny the request so a fifth member would have made nor difference to the case. there were also no procedural irregularities also. mr. kopp raises the letter of determination and it's not before you. it was final in 2008. there was request for determination. there is no reason the hearing can elevate that determination into something appealable or subject to your consideration and factually that letter in 2008

did not eliminate one of the pedestrian walkways in the site was in mr. kopp's letter. there are still two walkways extending from the project towards park merced and third the project itself approved almost two years ago is not a new fact. it was known on january 9. they considered this project as the environmental analysis so there have been environment review, consideration of the project along with this project. there is no reason a new environmental review needs to be conducted at this time so on those bases i ask you to deny the request for rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department plan. i really don't have much to add except i have been in front of

this board for seven years and i find it the best prepared in the city and county of san francisco and prepared for the hearings and ask insightful hearings. during that time the board has consistently applied the policy where there are four members that they will hear the item and if the missing member's vote would have made a change in the decision they would continue themselves so i don't see anything raised tonight was new information that wasn't presented at the previous hearing and i respectively request that the board deny the request. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> my name is dr. terrance faulconer. i am a [inaudible]

committee man for the last 39 years to the republican central committee and delegate for the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and member of the park merced coalition. i lived in san francisco all my life. i know the area very well. i think what he was aiming at and some of the others were trying to raise there were a lot of changes since this was considered originally seven and a half years ago. park merced wants to do a drastic rebuilding. they want to get the population up from 6,000, 7,000 people up to 25,000 to 30,000 people stuffed in a small area. since then 19th avenue has been declared a double ticket area because of traffic difficulties already. there is increased population pressure on it if they do in fact tear park

merced apart and get rid of the garden apartments and build the towers. there are a lot of problems with this. there are material changes in condition and no matter how you want to put it when people knew it the changes that have occurred are drastic and will change more. this whole thing needs to be looked at along with park merced because you will have much heavily stress on 19th avenue. you will have a higher accident rate. you will have more people getting in accidents and ending up in the hospital. god forbid maybe a couple of people killed. this whole thing is a big problem. it's been sketchily handled and park merced was chopped up and pieces were sold off and different developments were approved at different times and the thing is going to be creating a lot more pressure than it has. i think you need to take a look at t i remember

one of the colleagues of quentin kopp and was hl richardson and one of the lines in the california legislature is "what makes you think we read the bills?" and this is the same thing. i suggest you read everything you can on this because it's a terrible problem for the city. it will bring more pressure and more auto accidents and more difficulties. i strong urge you to take a careful look at this. it's beyond personalities. it's a problem. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners. my name is julian lagos and i am here before you on behalf of the coalition to save park merced a

group dedicated to save our community for future generations of san franciscans to am can. we support the appellate on a repercent for 800 brotherhood way for the following reasons. on the last hearing on this matter january 9, 2013 the appellant asked the four commissioners present then whether they had read his legal arguments submitted weeks in advance of the hearing. not one commissioner answered in the affirmative. later it was reported by journalist tim redmond in the edition of the san francisco bay guardian that only two commissioners he contacted had read the arguments at some point in time. in the interest of justice we believe it's a duty of all five commissioners to do their homework and read the legal papers of all parties prior to making a decision on important matters such as a proposed plan

development which would seriously impact a community such as ours in park merced. failing to do so under minds due process and public confidence in our system of government. secondly, it has been brought to our group's attention not that all neighbors residing within the 150-foot radius of the project were notified of the january 9, 2013 board of appeals hearing including those living on josepha avenue and along the 300 block of font boulevard and 100 block of garace drive. this agency's failure to notice the residents of the january 9 hearing constitutes denial of due process and grounds for a rehearing. for the aforementioned reasons we believe it's mb