. >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, july 1, 2015 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the preferring will be commissioner president lazarus and joined by commissioner vice president honda and commissioner fung and commissioner swig and commissioner wilson to my left is deputy city attorney responsibility bryan with legal advice and the legal vaunted mr. pacheco and i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined by city departments to my right is carl a for the department of public works and the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping i expect we'll be joined by scott sanchez for the planning department and

planning commission and joe duffy that represents the department of building inspection mr. pacheco please go over the boards meeting guidelines and the >> phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow mroemdz 78.

dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. business card to the clerk. do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance and thank you. raise your right hand and say i do after you've been scorn in or noifrmd any members of the public may take this without taking oath under the

ordinance. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. pacheco commissioner president lazarus we have one housekeeping item number ten appeal 15 danish 070 an appeal of a protesting think alteration permit on cresting after the parties have jointly requested that be continued to move it to july. >> thank you commissioner president lazarus. >> so moved. >> thank you. any public comment on the rescheduling okay. seeing none mr. pacheco. >> call the roll there's a motion 0 reschedule

item 10 to july 15th on that motion commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you the vote is 5 to zero this matter is rescheduled to july 15th item number one is general public comment for the opportunity to talk about to the matters not on tonight calendar any general public comment? >> my name is silva thompson i'm in the board of appeals and hear to listen to what everybody has to say about the appeal and to talk about the ways that make

that in a more important form. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none we'll move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners. >> no okay. then item 3 commissioners our consideration of the june 24, 2015, minutes any additions, deletions, or changes delegations to the minutes do i have a motion. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none mr. pacheco if you could call the roll please. there's a motion on the floor from the vice president to adopt the june 24th, 2015, commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 5 to zero those minutes are adopted.

>> item 4 a rehearing to the subject property on ashbury street the board received a letter from the appellant for the rehearing for this ryan versus decided may 13 at a point the board voted with commissioner swig recused to uphold the permitted with the revised plans on the basis the scale of the rear wall was no in balance to the scale to construct a 4 story dwelling unit and before you begin mr. ryan i understand that commissioner swig you've reviewed the materials and ready to participated. >> i rue recused myself last time because of the video i've reviewed that video and the

subsequent video and i'm not able to speak as well as the materials thank you. >> okay so go ahead mr. ryan you have 3 minutes. >> thank you francis dj ryan this is mount o alumnus and this historic picture to show you this is a steep hill the very first building is shown on the hill hundred years later the hill is almost completely filled in why am i asking for a rehearing this is the last lot on this street in the district the reason number one is that the boards rules have been abandoned by the developer excavation was initiated on wednesday the twilth and released without adjacent

neighbor notification in violation of the code number 2 plans this is the discovered plan they're not the developers own serving markser the plans don't reflect this thing the council failed to provide revised plans by the may 13th deadline for the last hearing and again abusing the boards direction and additionally the banner imagine of the tree to the light and air clearly from the rear of clayton street the reality the rear space will be highlight impacted there's a very steep down slide this compels further investigation and the developers council has misrepresented george the terrace hillside so here is just on ashbury street for the

downhill i see the tall buildings on the left on the east side and much shorter building on the west if we move up to europe terrace directly above we'll see mount seiu true and clear misrepresentation by the council the developer has previously not disclosed key ash angle data in the past and that was value dated this is being a litany of lies by the developer and not to disclose this as a hand drawn measurement so in conclusion i'm asking for a rehearing the excavation has been done and the plagues are not in compliance and the council failed to provide the plans and the architect are

misrepresenting the east and west as equivalent george it and the developer previously not disclosed the ashbury angle information. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> okay. thank you we can hear if the permit holders i have a relationship with the reuben, junius & rose i retain them reuben, junius & rose before the board will have not effect on my decision today. >> excuse me. no. >> good afternoon commissioners thank you, john here on behalf

of the project sponsor this is the fourth hearing by the board of appeals the boards previously heard and approved the variance and the board approved the site permit after the permit holder has a top set back the hearing for a to hear it those are extraordinary cases and upon showing new or different facts have arisen if known at the time can effect the hearing and the dr requesters has not brought up any new information those were filed with the board and also provided to the appellants open this friday plans that this board was looking at may 13 are the plans that were are the current site

permits excavation has commenced through a separate permit that's been pulled many months ago with the appeals period that work has been done consistent with the project so considering this project has been heavy vetted in 3 hearings and the fact and circumstances nothing new we respectfully ask the board to deny the request for a rehearing thank you i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. sanchez any public comment seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted commissioners i've not heard any third degree different

i'm prepared to support this. >> move to deny the rehearing bone the basis no new or different information has been provided. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion commissioner fung to deny the rehearings request. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner l. riley commissioner swig thank you the vote is 5 to zero the rehearing request is denied and notice should be realized. >> item 5 another rehearing on the subject property polk street the board got a letter four andrea requesting a rehearing which was decided on june 3rd at

this time the board said it was appropriate and the project is horizon and vertical for the 3 bedroom addition we'll start with the requesters agent. >> good evening madam chair lady and members of the board first of all i'd like to pubically apologize to madam chair for calling you i completely i'm sorry about that it was a mistake we're here to request a rehearing and basically most of my clients are not here i only have one here they believe they can't get justice from the board but they want to move ahead before they do that we need to didn't get things on the record

and basically i was coming here the old lady was asked by mr. functioning how long she's lived in the building 17 and she said she's on the ground floor level she thought i was going to take it take into consideration i've been in the dark but the dr responder i spend that time in the darkness it's my choosing but having said that, we're here for to have the for the record and this is necessary for the family to move ahead and as i said in the first hearing i think the department completely

botched 3 identification rules and basically, they should have put on the pages in they came with the excused there were 6 pages and accepting that they're limited to 6 pages you can put the most serious alteration on this building out of the notification which is the extension of the garage floor and this subterranean floor basically, you just pushed out the whole thing and the problem is you can do this in many ways this is 6 pages 6 pages you can have the drawings little ones for on each page that means pages or whatever we can have is it that r there but the planning department what they've done put a policy over the code and this

way you can't use the policy to supercede and code that's not legal this is deceptive everything was deceptive we've got the verifying the house was 50 years old they didn't do any of the mental review and it clearly says exempt from this. >> sorry your time is up. >> do i have a chance to come back up? and thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder >> good afternoon plant and members of the board i'm virginia with e organization g stereo representing the owner of the properties

i mean, i'm pretty much you're familiar with the project it is the third times it is going to the board of appeals basically, it was existing 2 unit that will remain 2 unit and property to do a 3 extorting store as well as san andreas fault the existing overhang on the rear of the property we've been caution when we designed the property to be mindful of the neighbors light and air that is 15 feet from the site property and it is set back from the back wall 3 feet we're not blocking the light and air the window property lines and the deck is below no privacy issue and the windows are not in permanent darkness by a structure creating the shadows

on his lightwell no new evidence from the appellant why we should have another appeal on the project we've tried to work with the neighbors and worked with the neighbors right and able to get a letter of recommendation from the neighborhood on the other side the appellant has made no effort to compromise they've proposed something that was rejected and followed the procedures from the planning department with the meeting to plan check exemplification making sure the project was compliant with the code so he respectfully would like the board to deny the request for the rehearing thank you. >> yes. please. thank you. >> anything from the department mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department i'll be brief i think that it is clear from the

parapets submittal there are their you he arrest arguing at the discretionary review hearing i didn't hear the altercation of the verifying it was implemented under the case which found the building is not a historic resource so i believe environmental review has been implemented as well. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening commissioners i'll be brief there was some documentation in the brief regarding a building code issue regards to the existing to the rear yard and there's a requirement of 25 feet they have 223 inches i've checked with the staff that deal with this issue and indeed it is

something we look at bye on a case by case basis because san francisco property lines are a lot of land lot a 25 feet requirement we let them down to 20 feet if in a sprinkler system with the rear wall with a minimum and that will need to be under an ab site i'm stailt this i don't know whether or not the project sponsor know this this is under the department review they'll have to do that i want to state that on both sides this is how it will be addressed. >> okay. >> thank you any public comment

on this item? >> yeah. i think that area that he was talking about do need sprinkler systems in it 3 by 8 i know it is 22, 23 and has you know some properties maybe needs to be looked at by the rules and pair of rules that all right. most of the testimony has been not have to be able to live in darkness with this which

shouldn't be you know in process and that's about all i have to say. >> any other. seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted >> commissioners i've not seen anything in the brief or the oral presentation that represents anything new from the previous hearings i'm prepared to support a rehearing and same with me. >> the bar is not been met. >> i move to deny it that no new or different information has been presented. >> thank you, commissioners mr. pacheco. >> on that motion from commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you the vote is 5 to zero

that rehearing is denied and notice shall be released. >> item 6 an appeal randell versus the public works for the mapping subject property is 22 leavenworth street for the system image inc. of a wireless box permit for the facility this is application number 14 plus and we will start with the appellant please step forward you have 7 minutes to present your case.

>> we do have something and all the way through this discussion. >> okay. >> commissioner president lazarus and members of the board of appeals were randell and black and blue bacteria ask this board for the permit we not only speak for ourselves and our home but for the public your front yard is a crooked street phenomena and the board of supervisors in sections article 25 offices the dpw the ability to protect the public as residents we see this installation as a true cost that

outweighs this benefits the tourist was not considered on this public tourist location and has the authority to revoke it. >> the facts we we want you to understand are in the letter of appeal the core of the matter is on this the conditions the dpw permit have not been met the wireless installation will obstruct the light and view. >> the picture before you is 2215 leavenworth our neighbors to the south and north this is the picture of from the window of our neighbors in the north this is a picture felt same pole from our own front window

and this is a picture again, the same pole from our neighbors in the south. >> the dpw and violations have attempted a down grade our view and place an art eric render resistance it obstructs the light and view for the residents and tourist four boxes referred to shown here which are visible to us for the fritter with those color inspections will obstruct light there is no restriction that meets them and diminish the authentic conditions because the tourists encycle the location from morning to night that is a identical reprehension of the

mount this is a clear violation of the permit as well a new third crossbar identified in the engineering specs but absent now in the color simulation from the developers specifically violates the permit that prohibits the various from the simulation and adds obstruction dpw miss labeled leavenworth as a good view street san francisco general plan map identifies leavenworth as an excellent view and supervisor wiener statistics the city wishes to retain control of the aesthetic streets those blocks of las vegas worth are one of the world's pristine viewers we

emphasis and reemphasis the importance of las vegas worth streets to the thousands and thousands of tourists millions of videos to all corners of the globe planning department denied an identical installation on lombardi an port location 8, and e yet alcatraz is photo from the bay this is shocking and disingenuous we can't stress the number of visitors that come to this small area go ahead. >> the deceptively and the planning department have chosen not to protect our tourists epic center despite