cost of issuance so if we don't issue they wouldn't get paid for their time. this provides if there's special requests we make. if they think they need to be paid we would do a special budget for that and do it under our usual procedure. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. do we have any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards. >> no member of the public appears available to speak. commissioners, any questions. >> i don't have any questions. >> commissioner mondejar. >> did i hear you correctly that they're not getting paid for advicing out unless they feel like they should be? >> no, no, that's not what i intended to say. no, i meant that generally they get paid when we issue debt there's some cost of issuance budget. in our last set i believe it

was $12,500 was how much their staff time came to that have charged are the proceeds of issuing the debt. just as a scale i think that's out of around $300,000 total if you take in the bottom counsel and underwriters, et cetera, so it's a modest amount of the cost of the debt. if there were an extra consulting role where we wanted them to spends some time, mou says they need to tell us if they want a special budget to be paid that would be separate from the cost of issuance and we'd agree to it first. they couldn't bill us outside the cost of issuance without talking to us first. >> that sounds more sensed. >> so they were to bill us for reimbursement for city attorney time, that's separate from our city attorney work order? >> yes, that would be. that would be -- >> that's basically their --

their counsel? >> yes. >> okay. so -- >> i move that. >> thank you. >> wait a second. >> so it's been moved, seconded. please call the roll. >> commission members, please announce your vote. >> mondejar. >> yes. >> singh. >> yes. >> rosales. >> yes. >> vote is three is. >> thank you. so yes, when we're set to skinny commission, as i keep saying, we need to be very vigil ent on where people are. >> are there any speaker cards for public congressmen? >> no speaker cards. >> report of the chair.

>> i the do not have a report for today. next item. >> next order of business is item 8, report of executive director. >> i don't have a formal report other than to direct you to the proposed forward calendar that goes out to the rest of the year and will certainly explore opportunities for other meetings, should there be a potential conflict. >> very good, since there's so few of us that's a possibility. next item please. >> next order of business, item 9, commissioner questions and matters. madam chair. >> any questions, matters? >> no questions. >> the only matter that i have and per happens it's a question is that since we're doing housekeeping with the review of our various policies do we have a sense -- or do you have a sense of what are the other

ones coming? we've talked i think a little bit about the sbe policy, which is a major one obviously. there wouldn't necessarily be clean up there, but any other policies? i mean, is there something -- maybe a list of ongoing policies that need to be tweaked, if you will? >> it comes to minds there's an existing records retention policy that we're reviewing. we're still in the analysis phase. we're not quite ready to make any potential recommendations to the commission. we want to do more due diligence in that record. certainly the personnel policy, the changes that were made, we'll take a look at the rest of the housekeeping items now that we've completed all the due diligence reviews t audits, the budget, this gives us a bit of breathing room, even though there's significant am of activity, we want to make sure

we're keeping all policies up to date so we'll take a look at that as well. >> the only other question now that you mentioned it is that when we amend our policy the amendments are applicable. perhaps this is a question for mr. brian, our general counsel, moving forward, do the amended policies apply, for instance, to development? i mean, how do they apply going forward? some may be incorporated in documents and mous, but presume they have prospective effect. >> i think i look forward -- the prize orty, the resolution the commission recently adopted to create preference for ellis act housing par tis pantses was a look forward because we've got, like, amber in time so to speak if there were other contracts, loans, agreements, et cetera, that were previously

approved that only gave certificate of preference holders preference. we can't unwind those, but it's a look guards. with each of these policies we'd have to look at what's the application for particular projects moving forward. >> as an example if we were to amend i know the personnel policy to go from two to one year, as i mentioned, that would be applicable to going guard, so it would be -- i presume -- i mean, you don't need to answer the question, but i'm thinking out loud that that would be a potential beneficial change that could have a beneficial impact on former commissioner ellington, i think. >> yes, i think so. >> okay. >> but that's the state of your policyings that exist at the time then, you know, moving forward that's what we'd implement under. so if you decide to change that

policy it certainly would be applicable, but we want to look at that -- >> yeah, yeah. >> because i'm also curious about why we have a two year policy versus one year, which is with the city so would just be interested to finds out why that was, why that happened, since we're going to approve it, what the reasoning was of the previous commission or whoever proposed that. i also have a question about -- since we're talking about personnel, how are you on hiring? are we fully staffed? i know last time you said your trying to ramp up your staffing. >> we have a good deal of recruitment still underway for project manager positions, compliance positions, really any position that was vacant in the budget we're almost in the

process of actively recruiting for all of them. there's a tipping point to stagger them a bit so we are underway to fill all vacant positions. >> commissioner singh, we are on commissioner questions and matters. do you have any? >> no. i don't have any question or matter. >> next item. >> item 10, closed session. there is no closed session. the next item is 11, adjournment. >> adjournment. 2:43. [laughter]

>> welcome to the wednesday, august 20, 2014, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals thank you for your patience we're preceded over by commissioner president lazarus joined but is commissioner fung and sxhold is absent and your fifth seat is vacant to my left to attorney bryant he'll provide the board with advise i'm cynthia goldstein we're joined by representatives from the departments that have matters before the board and scott

sanchez a representing the planning commission and next is the representative for the department of building inspection mr. pacheco consultation the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off you'll cell phones. platelets and departments representatives each has 7 mentioned to present their cases and 3 minutes important rebuttal people affiliated with those parties must conclude their comments in the 7 minutes per to assist the board in the accurate association of minutes the people are not required to submit a card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on

the left side of the podium there are customer survey forms on the left side of the board if you have questions speak to the staff or call the board office tomorrow morning on mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast go on sfgovtv incapable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give our testimony weight please stand and raise your right hand please note that any member of the

public may speak without taking the oath. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you mr. pacheco. for item one is general public comment this is for anyone who wants to speak is to the board for an item that is not on tonight calendar. seeing none, item 2 commissioners comments >> i apologize for being late it was a work-related reason. >> any public comment item 3 is the adaptation of minutes are the meeting for the july meeting 2014 and any corrections or deletions. a motion to approve the minutes it submitted

>> any public comment on the minutes. seeing none, mr. pacheco call the roll >> on that motion to adapt the july 23rd minutes. >> commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent so the vote to 3 to zero >> item 4 is the jurisdiction request that the significant property at 29th street we received a letter that the board take jurisdiction over the application which was issued by the department of building inspection 2014 the appeal period ended and this jurisdiction request was filed in july the project is is an existing two-story residence for

2 off-street parking parking spaces and we will start with the reflector you have 3 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm robert i'm representing the two folks a few basically facts they've lived directly west from the project for 10 years at 234 castro street i've placed a map on the orderverhead the home is located less than one hundred and 50 feet from the proposed project they were not given notice because in their not in the same block as the project yet their closer to the project and will be effected by many of

the addresses in the neighborhood that received the nose. just to be clear the folks understand their views are not protected that's not something they are seeking tonight it didn't maple they should have not received notice their quality of life will be effected on the open space and which serves as sort of a greenway for the neighborhood so your standards tonight is to grant a jurisdictional request that the city caused them to be late there an appeal they didn't file an appeal because they self-receive notice. one of the most important thing is that the city's general rule is to give notice to folks that are impacted by a project in order to accomplish the goal the

city has established a general rule which is addresses which are in the same accessory accessory those block they did come in cookie cutterer blocks so the rules don't all apply in this case, the city she could have realized the folks residence would be impacted by the project as much or more than others neighbors that did, in fact, receive notice but balls the folks didn't receive the nose at the didn't weigh in on the nose before the site permit was issued >> you have thirty more seconds. >> therefore they would like an opportunity to do so, now. the project will occupy more of

the space that is currently occupied and here's a current photograph of what it looks like from castro street. i have one more second? your time is up >> okay and i have a question. you stated i oils this is jurisdictional request >> yes. and but you mentioned in our comments that our client is not concerned about the view yet our first line has to do with the view a can you illustrate what is the concern. >> the reason line of sight was mentioned to give a line of site in the neighborhood and the proximity i don't have the proximity to the mid block open space. >> they've seen the project so

do you know wasn't their objections might be. >> the set back they believe the set back of the project may not have been done in the fashion they have been set in the mid block open space. >> okay. >> and the gentleman is here if you have questions. >> thank you. yeah. >> it's in my bag i'll get it for you. >> thank you. thank you >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good afternoon. members of the board i'm mr. shuman >> speak into the microphone. >> i'm sorry. >> lift it up. >> thanks.

>> my first time we're the owns on 29 street we appreciate the opportunity to speak it is your understanding is that the city inadvertently caused us to be late in filing the appeal we've opening engaged with the requester by multiple phone calls and e-mails and meeting at their home take the opportunity at the end of june my wife and i live in a small condo and this project will provide space for our family we've spent the last year taking care of what the department asked us. one the first one is direct impact if the site of living room this was over the phone as

well as in perch that or person they don't want thaib their baby to be impacted and their view is not protected. i feel like prior to this jurisdictional request all the views were not mentioned. i'm putting up two things priority to the board that shows those views are distant. this shows the view that the requester had a living room window and as you can see all project is between 529 and you can see it here >> i'm sorry can you speak closer to the microphone.

>> the doted line shows where our project is approximately the sold red line shows the height at 40 feet if you're looking at this there's hardly any impact to the requesters view the second is we're not in - we believe that the concept applies to ones own project he it didn't effect the open space if anything it's between castro street and the other street that blocks the open space we believe that it did not meet the standard and were not able to

show the city didn't allow them to request the correct time. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you good afternoon scott sanchez planning staff i'll be fairly brief the application underwent the neighborhood notification between march 12 and april 11th of this year this shall be ail prompts within one hundred and 50 feet from the subject lot f when the subject lot is a corner lot it will not be effected did i angle so the additional requires requirements don't

employ this highlights the map of the required notice boundaries i can't confirm that the jurisdiction requester should not have received notification under the section 311. under the properties up to one hundred feet we mailed and placed a poster an 11 by 17 bright orange poster so people could see the poster for thirty days those requirements have a been in effect and relating unchanged since 1996 and this is how we've been applying that additional that's it i'm available for questions. thank you >> any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none commissioners

the matter is submitted. >> well mime opinion is that they're not entitled to notice any other question to memo fellow commissioners, if you see other equalities leaning towards granting the hearing request and i don't. i don't. i don't either although i'm sympathetic to a building that is directly across the street not getting notice didn't seem quite reasonable for our process how it is intend that work >> i agree with mr. sanchez the bright orange notices should be efficient to attract aforementioned. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> okay. if you could cail roll.

please mr. pacheco >> we have o another motion from the vice president to deny the jurisdiction request. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent the vote is 3 to zero no appeal should be filed against this permit >> next 5 the property at broderick street we got a letter requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over the application which is issued by the department of building inspection on april 29, 2014, the appeal ended and this was filed on august 4, 2014, it is a new roof-deck replacing the new

wood railings and a collapsing deck. we can hear from the requesters first. you have 3 minutes. >> hello good afternoon. i'm josh representing myself and the other requesters. we're asking for the opportunity for this jurisdiction request be granted an opportunity to appeal this building permit an opportunity we never had. during the time the appeal was possible the two points we were never notifyed by the developer and the construction started 15 days after the construction we had no way of finding out about this. we never had an opportunity to

have our concerns heard. at all. and i'm not exactly sure how but the developer managed to get an over the counter permitting permit with no opportunity to get our concerns heard. our home both of our homes are 50 feet away from the roof-deck there's a clear view into our homes and it is a big concern for us an eye soar it is right we should have received notification and it would have been appropriate and neighborly thing to do the developers doesn't act in good faith he said he spoke to one of our neighbors and they said they never received any spoken

request until construction started. in summary, it is not fair to have an appeal period for a building permit when no one can know about it the developers response he saigd suggested we don't have a right to have our opinions and concerns heard. so for the opportunity to speak >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon. i'm dave i'm the permit holder and the owner of the property. and we the actual have a building permit issued on the project. we also worked with the neighbors including the gentleman to address some of his

concerns. let me address the code and second what we did to try to be a good neighbor. first, the code we don't have to give neighbor notification to the entire neighborhood if you look at claefrl on the roof-deck we have to notify the adjacent neighbors and mr. kruger is not an adjacent property. if you can see our property is 14 2w50i broadway restrict and he and the altering complainants are not property owners and the 311 notification process didn't require notification for this type of permit mr. kruger said he had a concern and that was in june 5th i was aware of what was

going on so this was a complaint i filed with the department of building inspection r building department we wanted to be a good neighbor i met with mr. kruger's wife walked to her apartment and said, yes we're blocking some of your views. the original building permit has 42 inch radials at the adjacent properties. and those are what mr. kruger was complaining about we spent a lot of time and money redesigning it we had the framed up there were solid walls we took those out and put up glass rails we're going to get a revised building permit. so wepe