. >> welcome to the wednesday, july 22, 2015 no, it's yes wednesday, july 22, 2015, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the board president is ann lazarus this presiding officer and joined by commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig and commissioner wilson will be absences today to my right it the deputy city attorney that provides the board with legal advice and mr. pacheco and mr. alec our legal process clerk and

cynthia goldstein the board's executive director also joined by representatives that have cases before the board jav us the enforcement enforcement and legal affairs management division of taxis and assessable services and be joined by scott sanchez that represents the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector at this time mr. pacheco go over the guidelines and will conduct the swearing in process. >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. 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 minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process.

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. 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 item one is general public comment that is more anyone that wants to speak on a matter of the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar any comment under number one two is comments from commissioners anything

commissioners seeing none item 3 is the boards consideration of the minutes for july 20th additions, deletions, or changes or anything on the minutes if not have the approval for the board minutes so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then mr. pacheco call the roll there's a motion on the floor from the vice president to adapt the july 15, 2015 minutes on that motion to do you want commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus sxlz is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero those minutes are adopted >> thank you item 4 the rehearing request for the taxi permit the board received a letter the attorney for the

appellant requesting a hearing which was decided on june 24th, 2015, at this time the board voted with the commissioner fung and commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig absent on the basis of the subject permit was xhoipt rescinded the motion failed after failed to modify the rest indication by default commissioner swig you indicated you watched the materials of the procedures; is that right. >> you can participate we'll start with the attorney for the query you have 3 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners heeding my opponent and i can agree ton page 3 of their brief where they say that at purpose of a motion for reconsideration

is to correct manifest reversible error in the law or facts here sfmta contributed by not printed in the record full and accurate information sfmta suggested for instance that mr. speakers shall address their comments to the commission as a whole and neither the police commission nor the la had gotten something for nothing by transferring the original manchester he worked for 20 years in the taxi destroy to hold that medallion whether the gentleman would have taken time off and sfmta said he would have participated in our program, however, sfmta didn't direct i am him to do so instead sfmta profited by collecting a transfer fee more was the permit fail a windfall for your client if you

were doubled into into the ada program he could have sold the permit sfmta claims that my client continues to earn in that case income as a regular medallion holder he e sfmta put restrictions on the permit and limit its hours of operation is he is the only driver and scant make money by leasing it if the 4 year permit is recognized he can only work for someone else more is it reissued since the program is a discontinued if this permit is revoked this small business is out of bizarre more or less importantly sfmta has led the commission to believe it sets a precedent by

allowing on ineligible permit holder to hold and permit, however, we've seen no data and we believe there maybe others sfmta reluctantly not limited to no other permit holder has been revoked for providing inadequate information upholding this sets a persistence that put at jeopardy 9 thousand permit holder for similar violations sfmta agrees that a man and woman fact is a reason to grant a rehearing and it is manifest if it oversight body didn't have the correct information we urge you to take the time as this matter is extraordinary and deserves our thoughtful review. >> thank you. >> mr. murray.

>> good evening commissioners jav vice murray enforcement legal manager at sfmta according to the rules of the board of appeals except in expired case the board may grant a rehearing only about san francisco ethics commission have arisen granting a rehearing request is an extraordinary remedy in this situation while heed to reality this we believe the matter was closed no new evidence as has been presented and no new offend not reasonably considered or discussed has been preferred they're asking for more time to convey a better argument or a

different argument perhaps i'm sure it is better but beyond that no new evidence has been presented what has been present a dissatisfaction with the board rule and that didn't equal to a grant a new hearing request and in their briefing the appellant want the board to propose briefing on policy regarding the sfmta and future policy that may or may not be set up that's you know whether it is not in the purview of the board necessarily but again those are things that could have been brought up at the time of the hearing if their genuine issues and not relevant to the permitted mr. ayatollah received money for emphasis medallion and obtained a new s permit

medallion through a mistaken through an arrow and has been operating for about a year at this point, we're pulling that medallion what can due to the mistake the board or hearing officer below agreed it is yes, a permit medallion cannot hold this particular permit and this board agreed or this board upheld anyway, the decision to allow the medallion to remain revoked for the hearing officer judgment there is nothing new it is an opportunity to relitigate the issue once again so we ask the board deny this rehearing request and uphold the permit s-29 a i have a question out of the hundred and 40 permits issued in the pilot program were

there a hundred and 40 permits issued. >> that's correct i'm sorry 4 the s permit yes about hundred and 40 plus or minus a few. >> the other question if this gets permit gets revoked will that one s permit be reissued or resolve itself. >> it won't devolve assuming we implementing eliminate the program that will be repurposed to be resold to a new medallion holder. >> okay. >> but we've been authorized to have a certain amount of medallions on the street we can't took that in front of our board to do so. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted.

>> commissioner at this point the bar has not been reached in terms of in my opinion by the new information on the manifestation i would not support a rehearing. >> i agree. >> i do agree i voted this against this initially i concur with commissioner fung the required information for in manifested justice has not been met. >> move to deny the hearing request. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the floor to deny this hearing request. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president

honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this rehearing request is denied and a notice of order shall be released. >> item 5 another rehearing the subject property on valencia street the board got a letter from the attorney for steve requesting a rehearing decided on june 24th, 2015, at a point the board voted to adopt the revised as amended it is a trust the holding to erect a 5 story parking building with ground floor area queries attorney and ma'am, executive director i was to the present for the last hearing i have reviewed all of

the television transcripts of this i have reviewed all the documentation that was prepared of every single one of those hearings copious hours. >> wow. i'm impressed. >> she said that the fellow commissioners - i had to perform anyway, i feel fully educated and prepared on the subject. >> thank you. >> thank you, thank you that's impressive it back to 2013 again commissioner president lazarus and members of the board steve williams representing the appellant hopefully, the board read my written submittal we're here to ask a renewal for a new hearings when the supreme court granted the neighbors petition issued a writ to set aside its

decision and ordering the board to give the neighbors a new hearing not to institute only the consideration of written finding the consideration of the written finding is a limited procedure that prevents a party from being heard on the merits only to one comment on the proposed written finding after a hearing on the merit two submit obama only 3 pages double spaced of briefing no exhibit and 3 addresses the board for 3 minutes on the proposed finding that's noticing not wasn't the board intended the court found it violated its rules the court didn't find that on page 2 lines 24 through 26 the court found a violation by reopenly the hearing on its merits and specifically on the issue of the housing affordability act the

court found the board relied on the act to issue it's final decision on page 3 line 13 through 16 of the order because the board enrolling we opened the hearing and allowed new testimony and merits the only way to correct that grant the neighbors an opportunity to be heard in the case the board changed it's collective mind on the case sometime after the original hearing december 11, 2013 and february 26th no additional evidence of testimony was received other than on the h aa and the boards position that it never relied that the h aa not mentioned now in any of the finding as it states in the boards rules in order to preserve the supreme

court e stribt all evidence the board considers must be submitted only at a public hearing that's what the appellants a chance to present the flying merits we have the opportunity to change the boards minded again to pursue do scared it our original appeal was being was granted in december of 2013 so we ask the board to grant us that rehearing. >> thank you thank you. we hear in the permit holder mr. ruth for the record. >> good evening madam president and the judge stated in admits writ they received a fair hearing and i was there the only thing i

wanted to know how you bridge the analytical gap with reference to the h organization a and the testimony you heard and how you applied to the case, no new information or evidence and there's no manifested injustice we ask i deny this request for an appeal any questions? >> thank you anything from the departments no? no that is any public comment no public comment then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i guess might be stephen is not enough the same opinion and no new information or manifest injustice has a threshold incentive therefore i'll not support it. >> having just gone through a

crash course on that item for several years on it arbitrations of the board the commissioners are nowhere else present i if i were sitting on the board i would have attended the meeting i missed i would have voted in direction of the board i see no new evidence to differ from that direction. >> you concur the criteria of manifest justice has not been met and i believe that this project has been fully vetted so i'll not support a rehearing. >> move to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the

floor from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to disclosure this rehearing request is denied and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> thank you. >> item 6 is appeal holly smith versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on pine street for testing issuance on may 2013 to church of an alteration to remove and parapet on the east bathroom to accommodate the third year window from the property line we will starts with the appellant or representative. >> thank you madam president

and members of the board i'm robert c ap listen i n the appellants attorney we're asking for the clients neighbors property contiguous to her building on piney assume you've read the briefs i the two things in the briefs i so you get alternative remedies there are a number of issues pending that have not reached you if it becomes necessary to file another appeal on subsequent permits i didn't raise those i'm aware of your jurisdiction i want you to know the issues i understand the permit cancel issued limited to the continues in that permit i have several points to raise with regards to that the first point has has to do with with the roejtd roof of

the bathroom edition modestly made to my clients neighbor home that is an elevated structure on supporters it republics to the clients neighbors wall to her wall it accommodates a bathroom and in its original condition that parapets those have to come down and the permit say the conditions on the permit also says that the roof of the bathroom has to be taken to an elevation that is under the windowsill of the subject window that is the window on the third floor of my clients building from the drawings submitted to you by opposing council it appears to us the leading edge of the roofline enter

sill it this may sound trivial but the leak problems that my client as endured as a direct result of the improvement in 2002, it the crucial we need to have adequate flashing between the edge of the roof and my clients property the direct rainwater away from my clients property there is no reference in the permit about this condition of the location of new roof no reference to flashing we want there to be enough room between the under side of the sill and the top surface of the roof when they get down to have room to accommodate flashing that keeps the rain water off any cloys property that's huge point number one

also it is our belief that when the curative work is done by my clients neighbors on the roof reframing will be required we don't see any requirement in the permit for a framing plan or a nailing plan or any other details recommending to the location of the roof just before it needs under the sill requirement we want to have that my second point has has to do with with the planter box i seen it was a large planter box put up next to the wooden sided building she began to experience water leak problems the department found the location that have that planter box against or close to my clients

buildings wall was a violation the permit said you have to pull it way but the permit if say that the planter box must also be pulled away that foundation is part of the cement complab slab the cement slabs butts and touches the wood that is desiring of the clients building the architect said the cement to wood content is transcribing to rot and is impressionable we want added to the planter box it the planter boxes foundation part of slab in which the planter box stood tsa has to be pulled bye back from the building 6 inches those are the specific requests we made for the curative alternative remedies we're seeking and finally on a good note that

opposing council and i have been working and we modestly might have this resolved by couldn't do it in the time left therefore we requested a decision based on the power points i want to call up my clients architect to give further testimony. >> thank you excuse me. >> excuse me. i have a question after making maybe you can set yeah. okay - >> good evening my name is jim i'm a registered architect in california lived in san francisco for 40 years and schar for the telegraph hill dwellers in 1994 to 2000 i'm familiar

with the stoops to the neighbors i conducted the investigation of the vast built on the deck edition on pine when i first saw the addition i couldn't believe the construction in san francisco i reviewed the file and royals it didn't match the approved drawings that avoided the required planning department notifications for the windows the building inspection has asked the residents to lower the top of the roof to blow the existing roof sill on bye can i have a few minutes we think that should be lowered to accommodate the sheet metal flashing along the edge the new

drawings to the notice of violation doesn't have a demolition plan no nailing schedule formal the roof sheet or no mention of the flashing between the buildings i think that all of those should be included in the drawings for the project as if they intend to lower the roof. >> thank you. your time is up. >> so if you could fill out a speaking they're on the podium and commissioner vice president honda. >> navy maybe the architect or counselor can answer one of the briefs when the most of the work occurred in 2000. >> 2002. >> is there a reason it took until 2015 for this - >> i didn't conduct my investigation until 2014. >> maybe the counselor can

answer the question and i'm sorry speak into the microphone. >> my client was not tentative point one and two a copy of the letter to her asking her to consent a further of a copy of a responsive letter saying i approve if you look at the plans that were in 2002 the date of the letters i'm talking about i'll see that the plans submitted then are do not interfere at all with the windows of she had antenna active ear window blockage would not have been a concern i want you to know collateral to this appeal other concerns are water leakage. >> the other question where