the meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are joined by commissioner hurtado, commissioner frank fung, honda and chris function. to my left is robert brian and will provide the board with any legal advice tonight and mr. pacheco the assistant and i'm cynthia goldstein, the executive director. we are joined by the city department sthav cases before the board. scott sanchez is here, he's the zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning

commission. joseph duffy is here. perfect timing. city and building inspector representing building inspection and john is here manager of the public works bureau of street use and mapping. mr. pacheco at this time if you would go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. the clerk requires that you turn off all cell phones. appellants have seven 7 minutes for their cases and 3 minutes for rebut amounts people affiliated must include their comments in the three 3 minutes period. members who are not affiliated have up to three 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate representation of minutes, members of the board are asked but not required to

submit a speaker card. speaker cards are available. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow located on mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on cable channel 78 and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sf gov tv. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearing and wish to give your testimony evidenceary weight, please raise your hand to be

sworn. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance and the administrative code. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear ora firm the testimony you are about to give to the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. we have one item no. 9. item 9: william gould & margaret banda, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 260 laussat street. appealing the issuance on march 28, 2014, to jeremy paul / quickdraw permit consulting, letter of determination regarding a request to allow a two-year extension of variance case no. 2010.0588v dated 1/25/11, which granted variances to minimum lot area, rear yard and non-complying structure provisions of the planning codee. for >> thank you. we have one item no. 9. sf 91234 this is a protest of a letter of determination regarding the party. the parties request this matter be rescheduled for june 11, 2014 , to work out an alternate resolution. we do need a motion and a vote in order to do that. >> so moved. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, mr. pacheco, call the role

please. city clerk: we have a motion from commissioner honda to reschedule item no. 9 to june 11th. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, honda, aye, lazarus, that meeting is rescheduled to june 11. th. >> the next item is item no. 1. this is general public comment. anyone here that wishes to speak on an item that the is not on tonight's calendar. >> good afternoon. my name is paula davis. i was here two 2 years ago on a street artist revokation. i'm sure it's most memorable to most people. i chose not to get that permit right away. i worked on my own without a permit for about a year away from street artist

and recently just decided to walk in and pay that permit. it was about three 3 weeks ago because there was a new chair of the street artist program, an older commissioner who had been around for 25 years and i was having hope that things would change there. so i walked in and paid the permit. i went down to justin herman plaza where i had knotted -- not been for two 2 years and that same individual who i don't know threatened me and harassed me. i taped it. he came twice and stayed for an hour and left. i didn't want anything to do with the street artist program because i felt it was too disorganized. they set me work permits. they still don't answer the phone. they are not there during business hours. at the mails they send are very off topic,

condescending and rude. in addition the manager is continuing to make 9-1-1 calls or me. 20 squad cars, mug shots. it's a lot of drama that really has no point to it whatsoever. i just wantsd to let you know that most probably i'm coming up again before you because now i have a permit. i'm not doing anything wrong, i never really did. i really wish all that drama would stop. >> thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak under general public comment? seeing none, we move to commissioners comments and questions. >> commissioners? >> i just want to remind everyone that i will not be in attendance next meeting. >> okay. anything else

commissioners? any public comment on this item. >> okay. next consideration of minutes from may 2014. any deletions or corrections? if not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> circulate any -- is there any public comment on the minutes? >> mr. pacheco, call the role please. on that motion to adopt the may 14, 2014 minutes, commissioners fung, aye, commissioner hwang, commissioner honda. lazarus. those minutes are adopted. >> okay. thank you. commissioners , the next item on the agenda is a special item having to do with consideration and possible adoption of memorandum of understanding between the port and the board. i spoke with

the port today about a possibility of entering a memorandum of understanding so we have an on going relationship for the board to handle appeals of certain types of permits that come through the port specifically entertainment related permits for events and operations located on port property. those permits are issued by the entertainment commission on behalf of the port and under this mou would come to the board before any appeal and be heard for any entertainment commission issued permit. if you would step forward and give us a few minutes to speak. the president's consent. >> good afternoon, commissioners. members of the public. monique moir from the port of san francisco. as you

may know there is a section of the charter that is devoted to the port and the ports exclusive right to manage it's properties and from time to time we defer to other departments who have more expertise than we do. several years ago we entered into an agreement with the department of the entertainment commission to help us with our entertainment permits which may affect restaurants, but it may also affect open space and other activities that may occur in the public right-of-way. at that time we did not plan for an appeals process and subsequently we have had appealed and would like to ask your distance in addressing those appeals. it has come to the attention of the port commission that it's a little awkward to approve a lease or license and approving the body at the same time. if you take that into

consideration, we would be most grateful. >> miss moir, the permit issued by entertainment are the same as the other permits that they issue? >> so the port issues building permits on its own. >> no, if the entertainment commission is handling the entertainment permits on port property. >> that's correct. >> are those permits any different than the ones they issue for other properties? >> they are not. in fact the entertainment commission has been collecting the board of appeals fee as part of hearing those permits for some period of time. >> their permits are already appealable here. >> yes. >> why would this mou change that? >> because in the charter there is a carve out of the ports exclusive authority to handle those appeals. i don't know why it's in the charter that way, but there is a

special provision that reports that back to the ports discretion. >> the entertainment commission is only issuing those permission from the port property because of the authority to them. that would need to delegate their authority to the appeal to us. i think that's the difference in the permits. >> how many permits are we talking about approximately? >> i would say, i don't know, that's a great question. i would say probably maybe a dozen a year. it really, it depends on the activity. as you know the port is often the starting place for a marathon that would go across the city so that would be the type of permit. the one that comes before the entertainment commission relates to restaurants that want to have late night hours. the last one that came before you related to the special event of the

america's cup. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> no. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, commissioners, it's up to you? discussion, comments? >> i don't see any reason why we should not approve the mou unless our executive director has recommendations to the contrary or additional comments? >> i think this would be helpful to us if an appeal would come up without having the board to entertain whether it wants to hear the appeal before and make the collection for fees for is you are charges so we will be compensated for our services. >> i have a question. historically, at what point in time was this board --

>> 96. >> where it was changed where this board did not have jurisdiction? >> it was 96'. >> okay. >> i will make a motion to approve the mou. >> thank you. mr. pacheco? city clerk: we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt the memorandum of understanding for the port commission. on that motion, commissioner fung, huang, hurt doeshgs lapis -- lazarus. this item is adopted. >> thank you for coming today. >> then item 5 is our next

item up which is two jurisdictions request. item 5: subject property at 56 presidio avenue. letter from brian soriano, attorney for steven minisini, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over electrical permit e2014/02/26/7657 and bpa no. 2014/03/13/0693, which was issued on february 26, 2014 and march 13, 2014, respectively. the appeal periods ended on march 13, 2014 and march 28, 2014 respectively, and both jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 06, 2014. permit holder: steven greenwald & rochelle alpert. project #1: 27 roof mounted solar pv modules, 250 watts per module; 1 interactive inverter, 250w power rating, ttl no. of rating 6.75kw905039, meter main electrical service will also be upgraded/replaced with new. project #2: remove existing roofing down to workable surface; install new 3-ply bur consisting of 1-ply 371 lb. base, 1 layer black diamond and 1-ply g&a mineral cap sheet, request. sf 51234 we can hear from the requester attorney first, mr. soriano. >> good evening, members of the board. i'm brian soriano on behalf of the jurisdiction request. some of you probably recognize me from the

numerous appearances made between these same two parts last year . i'm sorry to be back here again. we are not here out of so, you of did -- sour grapes. we are not here for solar panels. it's the manner of installation that we have a problem with and that no explanation has been offered for it and this manner of installation does not obviously appear to maximize the efficiency of solar panels. no explanation for the strange configuration that hasn't been seen been has been given. i would like to put a picture on the overhead. so these are standing almost up right and come almost four 4 feet high well above the

wall. without some more technical explanation for the chosen manner of installation, unfortunately one has to consider that spite might have been the motivating factor. we are not the ones that have concern about this. there has been a petition signed by other homeowners in the vicinity. they don't want to take away the right to have solar panels. they just don't understand why they can't lay them on the roof like everybody has. even a slight elevation would be fine. they have them standing up right facing south. it almost appears as the front row would block the amount of light to the second row. this covers the entire span. they were late filing the appeal because when they see roof work for the sooner oner or solar

panels. they didn't think people would be able to see these from a street level. this is a planning issue. we are not here to second guess the utility of the solar system. we are fans of it. we know the city is fans of solar systems and if everybody can do it, they should put them up. we want other eyes from the city's planning department. the reeb -- reason this appeal wasn't filed is we never thought this would be the case. when we realized there were other members of the neighborhood that have similar concerns we made jurisdictional request. within 24 hours the permit holders filed a lawsuit in superior court. the good news is this dispute is going to move on

to a different form. the reason we are here tonight is to simply ask the city to take a look for the benefit of anybody in this neighborhood as to why a less intrusive manner of installation can be done to pretend a safety risk and high winds and interfere from numerous properties unnecessarily and perhaps for a wrongful motivation. i will submit it on that unless you have questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. first comment, none of what mr. soriano said here tonight was listed in his letter to you asking you to take jurisdiction. had he raised the issue of the

manner of installation, i could have submitted to you something from the contract or who would have told you i installed it to maximize the solar capacity. there is not to spite about it. my clients hired a contract or, got the right permit, the contract or got the solar panels to do what it's there to do which is to generate electricity which is what they are doing now. if you look at the photograph that mr. soriano did submit to you, it shows you that these are not obtrusive panels. the photograph is taking from the roof deck next door. you can't see these panels from the street. you can't see these panels from a living space. they are on the roof. they don't interfere of this view with the golden gate bridge. they are just solar panels installed the right way. that is getting one step beyond the question before you tonight

and that is whether the city did something to inadvertently or intentionally mislead the requesters so they couldn't file timely appeals. in fact as you have seen, they knew about these permits. they in fact, mr. soriano sent me a letter saying that they are going to take the high road and not appeal these permits that the parties have going on with each other. they could have filed an appeal in a timely basis. they didn't do so. but one point i want to make out about that appeal if they had done it on a timely basis, these solar panels are favored by city and state law. state law states localities should only look at public health and safety concerns if they are evaluating whether to issue these permits. aesthetic concerns or the concerns of mr. soriano expressed in

this letter about view, the state has said those shouldn't be considerations for solar panels because the policy is to incur installation. i don't want to take anymore of your time. the point is there is no good faith basis for this jurisdiction request. even if there were, there would be no basis for the appeal. to do something the state and law encourages my clients to do. unless you have any questions. >> can you address the safety issue that mr. soriano raised in his brief? >> i know of no safety issue. he raised an issue tonight about, i guess he's concerned they might get carried away by the wind. my clients own this home. they have a responsibility for the solar panels. they hired reputable contractors to install them

appropriately. >> i'm trying to understand the way that i have seen them and i don't know much about panels, solar panels. the way i have seen them their installed flat. is there a reason why they are installed the way they are? >> to maximize their exposure to the sun based on the angle of the house and the trajectory of the sun. they are installed to maximize their generation power. >> thank you. >> mr. honda? i have seen them. i have a question about the installation as well. they are bolted to the roof, right? do you have your contract or here? >> yes. >> and times where i have seen them angled is when the roof is flat or even somewhat on an angled roof. but, because we

don't have information about something that was raised today on the papers on the angle and the installation method, is there, the contract or, do you know the name of the contract or that was used? is it a contractor in san francisco? >> yes. >> okay. i don't have anything further. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, president lapis lazarus, members of the board. it's been raised this is a planning issue. it is not a planning issue. section code split

explicitly exempt it and a zone manner of height restrictions well. in terms of reviewing this as a planning issue, i believe this is not a planning issue. there is no notification required under the planning code. in regard to the angle of the panels. the planning department and the city as a whole did not regulate that. the angle of the panel would be directly relative to the efficiency of the panels and that would vary over the course of the year. in the summer it would be positioned flatter when the sun is high in the sky and the winter it's higher up, more vertical. when the sun is lower in the sky, i think a general recommendation in san francisco in general is that you can use your angle would be equal to the latitude. san francisco is a little bit shy

of 58 degrees and it would be 38 degrees for a fixed panels and there is different schools of thought on that and there seems to be some plus minus of 15 degrees. we would assume these panels are installed to maximize efficiency and not detract from or cause any spite full issues with neighbors. again, that would be our assumption. thank you. that would be self facing too as well because the sun. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. the solar panels were permitted on an electrical permit issued by dbi. they were issued through electronic class c 10. the contractor looks to be

licensed. the description of the work appears to be within what we would normally see for solar panels. i did speak with chief director of installer panels. he looked at the photographs that were in the brief, he looked at the permit, the work was actually inspected and completed. it looked like a typical installation. i asked about the angle of the solar panels. he says they are normally about 37-38 degrees. from a dbi point of view we don't see anything strange or complicated about the installation. the structural question i came up with earlier, that would be on the plans of how they would be bolted and designed to obviously for wind load and stuff like that. we would check that. it's actually plan checked by our electrical inspection as well. these installations has more stream lined over the year for the process of this. we know the

directors inspected this and electrical they are looking for the electrical connections and structural connections. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, commissioners, these matters are submitted. >> it's not related to our process. >> [inaudible] >> i said no to that. >> okay. i'm going to, on the jurisdiction because this is a jurisdiction request, we did

hear some testimony on the merits, but i don't believe the standard is met for purposes of the late filing. we did hear evidence of and we saw in the briefs evidence of the knowledge of the timeliness issue and didn't hear any, receive any evidence suggesting it was the fault of the city for the failing on the part of requester to get the request on time and appeal on time. i'm inclined to make a motion to deny the request. >> comment? >> no. >> i will make the motion. >> okay, mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. city clerk: we have a motion from commissioner huang to deny both jurisdiction request. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye,

vice-president hurtado, aye, president lazarus, commissioner honda, aye. the vote is 5-0. both are denied and noah peels maybe filed. >> item 6. item 6: subject property at 2051 3rd street aka 650 illinois street. letter from stephen williams, attorney for christopher delaney et al., appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 14-058, delaney et al. vs. dpw buf, decided may 07, 2014. at that time, upon motion by commissioner hwang, the board voted 3-1-1 commissioner fung dissented and vice president hurtado absentt to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that the trees are large and present some safety concerns, and on the condition that 11 the trees not be removed until after a site permit has been issued for the construction project proposed for this site; and 22 that the replacement trees be at least of a 48" box size and if possible of a 60" box size. lacking the four votes needed to pass, the motion failed. upon further motion by commissioner hwang the board voted 4-0-1 vice president hurtado absentt to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that the trees are large and present some safety concerns, and on the condition that 11 the trees not be removed until after the june 5, 2014 hearing before the planning commission on the large project authorization for the construction project proposed for this site; and 22 that the replacement trees be at least of a 48" box size and if possible of a 60" box size.

permit holder: richard price. project: approval to remove six 66 existing trees and plant nine 99 >> item >> we will start with the requester. >> good afternoon, commissioners, you know who