you or sate exactly where sf planning commission erred in 2345ir review of my appeal that comes before we're in a public emergency an extreme housing stock shortage we urge you to stay and mission. >> if you haven't submitted a speaker card 2 will help with the minutes please do any other general public comment? >> good evening, commissioners my name is renée here to brought to your attention a situation in the city is this working can you see that. >> reference the overhead please. overhead please. what do i do?

>> go ahead. >> really needs the picture to bring texture. >> it's there. >> okay. thank you. >> what i want to point out this is a building exterior facade change that is occurring over on post street and sutter and pier and steiner an entire city block that a building consumes the block what is on the right if you could please keep it up there that would be helpful. >> replace originaleding comma

and causing safety concerns the what they're doing is completely changing the facade and adding extensions horizon extensions to the building at the top and bringing this cement siding it overwhelm pier and stern and post on that block are beautiful period this is a viewiner and post on that block are beautiful period this is a view on sutter - there is a beautiful historic church building this is another picture of the church and on the other side of the street are beautiful period

victory telethons that they've kept up nicely this permit was put through the process with permit in expediters - this permit didn't go under 317 this is a picture of horizon top and on the permit application it's the contract numbers are disconnected the reason i said to bring this to your attention. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> simply ask the planning department to report on the next appeals hearing. >> thank you very much

any public comment? general public comment seeing none, item number 2 is commission questions or comments and commissioners anything. >> as our previous predecessor any additions, deletions, or changes. >> haven't called that item yet. >> the comment. >> so we'll move on to item 3 the minutes which the board should consider the january 28, 2016, minutes dot to. >> commissioners any comments on the minutes. >> no commentitto. >> commissioners any comments on the minutes. >> no comment we need a motion commissioners. >> move to adopt. >> seeing none, no public comment commissioner president lazarus

commission lazarus and commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries before we move on to item 4 a housekeeping matter on 9 a representative here for the permit holder if you are here please remain standing there is a request by the council for the appellant to have the board consider a continuance of this matter we can give each side and make a decision depending on what the board says we'll call the item or continue it until later are you represented by council tonight so we'll hear the appellant and hear from the

permit holders so please step forward with the presidents consent 3 minutes each. >> yes. >> thank you commissioner honda and congratulation bryan patterson for the appellant i'm spanking speaking on item 9 at the end of the agenda and requesting a continuance to the permit holder can file a brief the permit holders brief was due last thursday and i believe they wanted to file an appeal and didn't make it as a result explicit file a brief we want them to file a brief if they don't we'll be engaging if a technical discussion of calculations with no notice ahead of time the arguments or their evidence to be elevated it

is prestige and the board to calculate that evidence ahead of time this is a tactic we call sandbagging the court call those sort of things short tactics and highly disfavored the board cannot vault this nor can the department opine on it and from our prospective we have no idea if they've had several weeks and send to their experts for review for the boards and our sake we object to this tack tick and request this board continue this matter to the next valued hearing date so accident permit holder can file their brief we

previously reached but to the permit holder to allow them to do this they refused i understand developers want to move quickly this project has gone through a lot of legal process at this time mostly years i believe that a week or two for the boards next available hearing date will make a small difference in timing but come to the right results in this case thank you very much i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening board members i'm bruno it is my wife susan and my father helmet we will start by saying we're not developers we're homeowners this is our first home we live at and we've been told by the attorneys

of the appellants through 4 hearings including this one starting with dr review in front of the the planning commission and the board of supervisors and your you all last year and frankly, we're getting tired it is been an abusive process most recently, we won a court case the superior court in california all in our favor the issues the brief by mr. ryan certainly this this round hold no merit with the others there knit picking how i filled out the application form. >> sir we're addressing the continuance. >> oh, oh okay. i'll focus on

that my understanding is that well, i apologize for not submitting a brief in reflection i don't think there is anything to submit to support those issues i'll prefer to address in my allocated time they're not complicated matters and i'm not sure there is a reason to submit a brief we're tired of abuse and i'm sure the city departments will be able to say a few words on those issues so really i guess there's not much to say. >> i'd like to add we actually missed the deadline it was not - we couldn't file it my husband said in retrospect not

necessary. >> yeah we'd like to precede tonight i don't know those issues are that complicated if this is possible thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you anything from the department mr. sanchez or mr. duffy any comment on the continuance only seeing none, commissioners you have to make a motion or if you don't we'll precede the item later. >> okay seems no other motion to be made; is that correct president. >> that's correct. >> shall i call the question? this is a jurisdiction request the board received a letter if larry yourng young taking jurisdiction over the

application which was issued i october 21st by the department of building inspection it end on november 2015 and it was filed in 2015 the permit holder so here and add bedroom 2 and a half bath and replace the dry rot and exterior walls and reroof at northeast rear and replace slab and balcony we'll start with the requester mr. young 3 minutes to address the board. >> good afternoon board members my name is larry young i'm actually here to basically state that the developer and architect started the projectile bought the property next to my building without a permit alternated the roof. >> i'm sorry speak into the

mike. >> they've alternated the roof and the plans stating the existing plans didn't exist preceded to obstruct the roofline that obstructed the lights into the ground floor so i'm here to state that they have totally disregard for the neighbors first of all, to do this and on top of they've built a tall fence that obstructed 1/3rd of the kitchen window just to make the story - no way fast forward they've complied with some of the requests but been an stressfully ordeal for me and my tenant i truly want to see the altercation plans they've made for the new rooftop

that is trying to follow the existing rooftop that is much lower i've made the architect to view to meet him at the job site to measure the rooftop i've not heard back this is where we stand at this moment. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> commissioner vice president honda and commissioners i'm susan this is sandra represents the building owner i'm the architect on the project this was a permit that was actually submitted in error on our part i hate to admit that basically, if i can represent

things the overhead that would be helpful so you can see the conditions this existed so this is the rooftop that apparently got built in error the one on top we met with the neighborhood mr. young and the neighborhood in my office this was a month ago we discussed the issue the issue was that when i took the measurements in the field i measured the interior space i have the measurements i'll show you in the moment and that red two by 6 represents on the face of framing represents where the rooftop should have been okay. so what

we did in the beginning just to give you a chronology of the events that was where it was framed because the contractor took everything apart and basically followed the existing ceiling line to frame the new roof this is the way it should have been framed with the dimensions and those dimensions come off of my field dimensions that show right here is the section of this area right over here which represents a crossing cross section of frame show us 97 and a half inches the high points 76 inches to the lower frame and 2 by 6 frame we've met with appellant and basically said lock it was an error i want it muttered the field i do the

plans i didn't measure the exterior of the building i only measured the interior and when i drew the plans sent them to the owners for their approval they basic approved the concept we are moving forward i sent a colleague to measure the exterior of the building in the meantime the contractors exploratory demolition contractors went outside the scope and had tore off and reframed it when someone from my office measured it they measured the new framing it pulled the new permit to rectify the problem it was reframed. >> your time is up. >> can you finish. >> yes. this is the framing inside and this is out loud of

the building this was a photograph i took this morning it was boarded off but the framing document is consistent this was the original roof area where the roof was i i cannot give you a better picture than that the permit was pulled the framing was done to rectify the rooftop and right now i think all framed in properly and the sheet is on i think that the roofing is going on tomorrow. >> thank you very much. >> when was the new permit pulled? >> the original signature of the permit was on 11, 20 by the planning department staff it was issued on one, 15 so i made an effort - what i did mr. funky made an effort to

contact the additional we have an i said i want to meet you the field i didn't hear the appellant on this matter and at the last moment they started to request to meet with me honestly, i didn't want to meet he thought that was to be taken up by dbi i didn't want to meet with them to be on the site is a liability and all the text message and e-mails i might have received was a little bit hostile towards me i didn't want to enter into battery game i didn't want to engage quite

honestly this was the text message i've sent them this was a very - the day after a met with them. >> any other questions commissioners. >> i have a question which permit is which mr. duffy can - >> okay. >> i can show you the permit. >> thank you. i'll wait for the inspector. >> we'll hear the inspector and again commissioners this is a jurisdiction request. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi last week he never got a chance to congratulate the new president commissioner honda on the appointment and commissioner fung for vice president on behalf of dbi. >> so on this jurisdiction

request there is actually that building permits obtained i'll read them the first one was the exploratory demo for dry rot to check for damage and limit to 2 feet in height that permit was issued over-the-counter other than 11 of september, 2015 the permit under our request is for modified interior walls and add bedrooms and 2 1/2 bath and termite damage and reroof at northeast rear replace slab on rear balcony that is to over-the-counter permit that was on october in 2015 and it was issued on the 21st of october r78 2015 it went through

planning review building review and mechanical and it was issued as i said on the 21st of october 2015 around the 30th of october we received a complaint at the dbi and an anonymous complaint received on the 30th of october saying the building inspector don it was work outside the scope of permit the height of the house went up and from a pitched roof taking the view away from the neighbors we we respond on the 6 of november on the 20th of november a notice of violation and stop work order was orientated issued it was

issued by don the district building inspector and steady the scope of the building application and the rooftop changed wee rear side walls extend and salutation of the permit is required to be additional by the roofline has been changed we instructed them to provide the plans for the work done and planning approval will be required the permit must be revised and approved we had another permit that was taken out to modify the original permit that ends up in 95 if the drawings reflect the error to the conditions the northeast rooftop to comply with the notice of violation i did review those drawings and it looks like the latest permit issued on the

15 of january 2016 was back that on the 20th of november so it was filed pretty much the same day as the stop order i think you've heard the architect it was issued are correspondence with the neighbors it actually was issued and my understanding is that they've been working on reducing roof to what that was originally we'll we'll have the roof back to where that was originally we dealt with the complaint and now take care of it i'm available to answer any questions. >> how had had i determine what the original roof was you could use google or off the photos i had that discussion with the senior donald duffey

the neighbors is going to have to help us you know there was i think there is something 90 the brief of a 6 foot that's what the requester said 6 feet will appear i've not seen when you get down to 6 feet in the ceiling i believe there are photographs showing a window and a header above the windows that obviously increases that that is something we'll have to deal with at dbi i'll expect that is forth coming and the neighbor obviously has at input into that they can file a new complaint and look at it is again. >> actually, they, file an appeal this one was issued one slash 15 they've got two days. >> question inspector duffy

the work on the second permit would that require building drawings. >> you'll bring in our original set and bring in the revised set but the drawings yes. that would be right yeah, they will show what we had constructed and the modification. >> did you happen to take a peak and again, the measurement they draw think is drawings you know that second permit to correct one way or another we we've cited them and the requester described. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening commissioner vice president honda congratulations for your elevation last week i've seen

this by the staff the work the interior and the exterior reflects the dry rot and termite damage that is allowed without the neighborhood notification as you can see dbi has found they incorrectly increased the volume of building at the rear this will require neighborhood notification had they not taken the notice to correct it but given they've brought the building back to the original it was properly reviewed and not rider neighborhood notice and as noted it is within the 15 day appeal period thank you. >> thank you comment on this item? okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> well, i think that is

incumbent on the parties to discuss this i don't see where the error outdoors on the part of the department i think it occurred and being corrected by revised permits so the appellant is the jurisdiction requester has the option of filing an appeal on the correct permit that deals with the rooftop i'm not prepared to support the jurisdiction. >> i'll second that. >> would you like to ma that your motion mr. president. >> move to deny the request the department didn't error. >> on that motion by commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and

commissioner swig that motion carries we'll move on jacqueline matt versus the parklet the property on filbert protesting the issuance to charles robert schwab an altercations to comply with the notice of violation to rove and replace a recreation and parks department and 6 foot private fence and we'll start with the appellant. >> prior to starting i'd like to make a disclose i have hired reuben, junius & rose on a separate matter reuben, junius & rose representation of the entity powering before the board will not have any effect on my decision today. >> thank you you have 7 minutes to present to the board. >> thank you, commissioners and board members for hearing

the appeal i'll matt a surgeon in san francisco via medical center and residents and one of the owners on scott street my property boundaries filbert i believe you have photos and in brief of july 2015 we received a handwritten note on the property and with a request to contract the property owner have an opportunity to build a new fence not to touch our retaining wall our property will not be affected and only need to set foot to stand in our yard to put up the wall we gave verbal consent the workers started to demolish our wall without our consent and built a support

frame and damaged the plants and built the wall twice the size we made multiply attempts to contact him and had letters delivered to his residence with no response my wife kablt inspector duffy and to stop the work the work continued nonetheless at one point i found the landscapers on our property and the foreman my mind i knew about f that this was forwarded to the enrollment department and ultimately the owner managed to arrange for a permit less than a week later the property owner left a hose running the water fleeing was sufficient to flood our entire yard i have the video

cliffs i'll be happy to to show you we've experienced flooding every time it rains the concerns i'll show you the video in time permits the permit inaccurately describes the new wall as 18 inches tall not 4 feet by the legal team and navigation the wall is 5 foot 10 inches tall and the discrepancy relates to the neighbor raised his wall without permit and from his side only the proposed told. (off the record.) foot monuments to an 11 foot wall shouldn't be loud without the consent and less than 50 foot soil disruption didn't accountant

account for the magnificent regrading the lawyers said our complaint it not in keeping with the properties the neighborhood and it violates the san francisco and given the fact it was built without prior permit it pose a safety hazard to us and our children at the 11th hour having originally experiences the flooding the quote the lawyers have removing the loopholes and no guarantee that this rectify the drainage nor make it more safe throughout this entire process the owner has treated this not good it should be recognized and the fence disallowed and the wall

dismantling and it must comply with restrictions and the accuracy for drainage thank you for your time and consideration again, i'm more than happy to share the video or voicemail of the flooding thank you >> thank you. >> thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening melinda reuben, junius & rose i'm here on behalf of the pertain to legalize the wall and replaced the previous failing wall with a sturdy structure unfortunately, the contractors incorrectly said no permit was required when he received the

notice that a permit was needed he stopped the work and submitted a permit to comply that was orientated by dbi and immediately appealed to provide context on the site we'll place on the overhead site the owners property it shown in blue fronts on filbert and this is the hilly area the grades slopes up from the appellants rear yard to the owners yard and to the properties of west the are respect wall is concrete and extends 20 feet the wall height various from east toe west with 26 feet about 5 feet tall and 02 1/2 feet tall to the west working on the fence has been stopped for 4 months

because there is a notice of violation the property we would like to move forward to complete that as quickly as possible to avoid penalties i want to address first, the height of the retaining wall as i mentioned the new walls ranges from 2 and a half at the west side and due to the sloping of the property the highest point is 2 and a half feet go of the previous wall it will as a matter of law fencing that extend to the wall height the appellants want a shorter wall this is a aesthetic concern neither the planning code restricts the height of the retaining wall and from the height up to 10 feet from the grade of the property so the previous grade of the owners property was 2 to 2 and a half feet with the previous existing

wall the new wall is 2 and a half feet at the highest point the 6 foot fencing will extend to 2 and a half 8 feet and within the planning code requirement it is also a reasonable height for the fencing in the area the soil at the rear of the owners yard has not gunning been done once that is done the fencing will create persists for the pets as you can see from another incidental on the monitor which is in the brief the fence is going to be shorter than the fence on the adjacent property to the west that borders the appellants property because of the grade your naturally seeing it higher secondly, the appellants don't like the

material, however, it is an aesthetic preference the wall materials that have been selected are high quality and meant to last long term and third the appellant stated the previous wall was on their property this is not the case the retaining wall is on the rear property the appellants have the burden but not provided evidence which is directly by the site conditions finally the appellants did object to the water that led to water run off we reached out to dbi to discuss the design and were told the drainage is not approved in other words, to resolve those we've proposed permits that was are included in your packet die we are asking

you to approve the permit as revised which is resolve at this time, i'd like to ask our engineer david jones to come up and talk about that and how it will abate water run off. >> good evening i'm david john's the california civil engineer that prepared the structural calculations from this on the overhead the currently proposed plans modified from the intimidated plans to eliminate the water run off to address the concern to accomplish this the plan the revised to fill in the previously shown loopholes instead of directs the water to or 3 dry wells it extend to 10

foot blow the surface and those are noted on a the drawings the revised drawings show the steel to enforce the strength of the wall as marked b this work was done on the owners property as well from the revised lastly the revised plan shows the ground surface and the existing wall and makes ta a note that limits the fill to 2 feet it is marked c we on the current proposed plan has redundancy and it has been designed to resist the conditions and a drainage as a back up measure the wall was designed for a

maximum feet of 5 feet from the marks d from the majority of wall retained height is less than 5 feet and lastly this will discuss in daily that is represent opponent and dbi can conform confirm that is code compliant and should could be approved thank you for your time i'm available to answer any questions. >> counselor are you finished. >> two questions you keep mentioning 5 feet and 2 feet is that measure on what does? >> measurement that will be a measurement from the total height of the wall. >> pardon me. >> it should be a measurement from the grades at the start of

wall on their side of property. >> the permit holder 90. >> no, it is on our property so, yes from the location of the wall because of the wall to the top of the retaining wall. >> your photograph indicated the soil to be relatively close is it looks like it is 4 to 6 inches below the top the new wall; is that correct. >> let's see. >> i don't understand the question. >> i refer to our photo where you show the fence. >> this is looking from presidio's property.

>> that's not on the one you you were showing up there. >> no. >> let me put this on the projector is that photograph 6 from the permit holders property looking west. >> in the photograph she had was different. >> you're talking about an exhibit to our belief rather than the plan sheet. >> i'm talking about the single sheet you put on the overhead. >> previously. >> during your presentation. >> that will be this image right here.

>> right. >> this area that i'm public health at on the monitor from the permit holders home looking at the rear wall no fencing construction in that area so the retaining wall is here and there is excavation along the area next to the call where some soil moving the area and not showing you a direct on view the entire rear wall. >> right. >> just to be clear this photo is looking at the new fence. >> this photo. >> the permit holder fence. >> the new retaining wall and what your seeing on top of is the meshing. >> if you look at the grade it shows that the soldiers e soil is relatively close to the top of the new concrete wall. >> so there was some moving of

soil during the shaping and some is shoved into the wall if you're looking at the length of the wall it has got a lower area of soil not filled in yet where the tree is located another image i'll should you. >> okay. >> this guy see so this is you're looking from his building towards the rear of the property line it the tree fairly close to the property line you're seeing the retaining wall the backyard they've not moved soil to level off the property line so about a foot down. >> yeah. >> the retaining wall walls walls are built with 6 feet of work. >> after you fill. >> yeah. >> i'm going back to any original question your indication is that the height of

the wall is 2 feet plus to 5 feet is that from the appellant side. >> yes. yes. >> what we'll work with that later okay. >> may i ask a question you character the wall as failing who made that judgment. >> you were in involved stones were falling down via the property line and didn't retain much. >> who the owner my proton problem it this did you do a one survey. >> no. >> did the appellant do a survey. >> no. >> whose wall is that. >> we maintain our wall that is on appeal they'll have the burden of showing the wall is located on their property.

>> so no professional there was no professional study other than someone saying it was failing and no concussion with the property owner next door to ask have any discussion with regard to tearing down something that was they preserved was their property. >> no survey. >> so the owner the permit holders arbitrarily said this was failing without an engineering study and a determination it was owned by them. >> not that i'm aware of paw thank you. >> thank you inspector dufnspector duffspect thank you. >> thank you spector duffyw thank you. >> thank you spector duffy

thank you. >> thank you spector duffyt thank you. >> thank you spector dufh thank you. >> thank you spector duffya thank you. >> thank you spector duffyt thank you. >> thank you spector duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the case with dbi started a complaint was filed on the 31st of july 2015 on phil berry street the owner removed the retaining wall 3 feet higher wall the previous wall adding 6 feet property line fence to property from the orders of scott street and they give us a phone number to assess their yard the case is referred to via the inspecting 2k078d of donald duffey he issued a notice of violation on the august 7, 2015 for a site

visit the notice of violation read a complaint is filed with this development with a concrete walled 8 inch thick poured wall approximately 5 feet tall not including the north wall stop all construction and obtain the building permits plans indicate the height of the wall to existing grade and height of fence an approved drainage and the building permit under appeal remove and replace the property lines property line with the fence and work not visible from street not ordinance not applicable that was gotten

over-the-counter permit and through october of 2015 that was through the building the same day and it was approved over-the-counter as i said and a permit was issued on the 15 of september an appeal was filed and we have the appeal suspended from 2015 after the appeal was filed i was contracted by the attorney for the property owner i arranged and meeting at the sited brought a structural engineer geotech engineer they met we had issues with the poles into the neighbors property you must take care of drainage on our own property it is a sloping yard i let the engineers talk about it

dan had some drawings not in the form of a permit but electronically i believe our engineer louie had more discussions lives with an approval by dbi the form off the board of appeals permit or a subsequent provision permit i believe that permit this is on the drainage issue so that would be approveable for us and one thing i'd like added is that all roof drainage is also directed into the city's sewer i was concerned about the drainage but want to make sure on to downhill lot water is gather the city sewer that was maybe that is some of the plans didn't mention i'm available to answer any questions i think this is about

as much as i have to say. >> the presidio's engineer indicated they added some strengthening to this wall at 4 different places is that based on the discussions with our departmental staff? >> i wasn't aware of discussions to strengthen the wall he let the engineers i'll have to take the word of the engineer mr. jones maybe you have a question for them but louie looked at the plan and did tell me they were approveable whether they included the drainage it is on there as well. >> the plans are small it is difficult to see. >> mr. duffy when there recent an issue with at property line

and one neighbors words against another and neither is taking the time to do a full survey yet in this case without a permit there is destruction and the rebuilding of an unknown permitted wall now permitted what is the - how does that work. >> we struggle on those nobody wants to pay for the survey the drawings every drawing have to a site plan so the permits applied for under 2018 filbert street he could get a survey and produce that if we saw that indeed his survey showing the work on his property and someone else taken that over we would issue a stop work order and address that the

form of a notice of violation and sometimes the two parties get together and split the costs but it was hard for me to determine the property line i didn't know the property line was an issue to be honest i wasn't thinking of property line issues but they could get together and come up with a survey that's one solution but the permit holder will be foreclosing to construct on someone else's property because of civil litigation i imagine there are a lot of property line disputes we deal with some of them can be on dbi but end up in the courts wears certainly not i don't understand asking for a survey we don't like someone makes an accusation to ask the person to have a survey it is on

that person it is unfortunate we like cooperation but the cost of survey is what it comes down to. >> i have a couple of questions inspector duffy so reading the brief two notice of violations or one. >> i have one. >> and if they continue to work after the first one is issued. >> that's an accusation i'm not familiar with i think there is one notice of violation i can look online and get back on rebuttal. >> the other question the appellant mentioned the fence height it is that still within the code to build. >> i believe this is 6 feet on a retaining wall is okay. i'll let mr. sanchez we like the height of the fences to be governed by planning if you're building a fence in our rear

yard and just regular you don't meet a permit for 6 feet or less and the site of the rear yard is not visual from the street is it applies with a retaining wall but if you have a retaining wall and want to put an 8 feet fence you're up to 14 feet planning may have an issue there is the 10 feet rule and mr. sanchez will speak to that. >> okay. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department to the one question to the one relevant planning issue is the fence under 9 planning code your allowed to have a fence up to 10 feet in height on the subject property without neighborhood notification without a variance so this is what the code allows based on what i see here and

what's been represented by both parties the if he has it is proposed the 6 feet above the retaining wall is code compliant there are disputes how high the retaining wall may not be raised at the highest point the retaining wall of the plans of the northeast corner of the property is 5 feet above the grade of the appellants property when they have a 6 footed effectiveness that's a total of 11 feet above the appellants property all 9 recommendations there's been retaining wall there have at least one fiat foot in height that's what we're talking about one foot with the record and it is difficult with the grade issues and grade has changed and in different ways but what is presented i don't see anything that is compelling

not code compliant no more than 10 feet above the grade when on the permit holders property that is where the planning department is i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have one mr. sanchez the backyard is sloped daurndz; correct so the retaining wall the appellant said additional grading at which point adding soil does that trigger the building or planning. >> some nevertheless of - well, it depends on the amount of excavation it won't trigger a - excavation a bit more than two to three feet can trigger and review but what we're seeing not trigger a environmental review or planning review everything is

in planning code. >> thank you. >> just to be clear for everybody the 1010 is above the original grade. >> ; correct. >> modified grade. >> correct to provisions the planning code acknowledging it may be necessary to take action having larger retaining walls rear yard on the ceqa lot in these cases we allow a retaining wall we don't want people falling oath but a normal height this is not the situation so it is code compliant thanks. >> a thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 additional minutes. >> so i guess the issue my understanding it the height it is higher than 10 feet and i'm

not understanding maybe the code i'm happy i don't know if so needed to see the pictures. >> why not we'll ask. >> you know i think this the the largest outstanding issue as far as the ownership of the wall anguish we did not it was never suggested to us we needed to competing complete a survey and as i said the voicemail made reference to the wall on they're side of wall again, i can play that for you when we purchased the property our contracting review mentioned the wall has to the extent had cracked and we needed to address this this is an issue to bear in mind for the future and this is the incentive of the ownership issue the drainage concerns what is

imposed i'm not in a position to comment whether or not this is accurate it peers to be but approved after the fact and an 18 inch wall not consisted with what has been built so those are the issues the biggest outstanding issue ousted the fact the wall shouldn't have been built the in the first place. >> you want to show us your

photographs. >> you ready for the computer you can stop that thank you. >> i submitted this previou y previously. >> actually, we saw that in your brief do you have to photo of

the entire wall of your >> murphys law. >> this is the original wall and the new wall and 5 feet one is from the mid point. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and since the question had come up. >> sir, can you turn that microphone on if not already on. >> this is all new soil and new construction and the filbert property. >> okay. >> with a degree of flooding

thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> so a couple that of things to follow up first, the wall location issue that has come up a couple of times unsupported accusation to suggest this this wall was located on the neighbors property it is in line with the rear of this property on the property and lined up with other walls and fences on properties to the east on lots that are the exact same dimensions as the rear of their property and not under the ownership of the neighbors we have made several attempts to

reach out to the permit holder and discuss some of the issues unfortunately, we received no response to those attempts and aesthetics and other issues the wall as designed it is code compliant it is made of high quality and attractive materials that are lasting and the appellants concerns about the heights they're not code concerns with this permit we have proposed revisions to address this and shared with dbi and investor code compliant we ask you approve the permit with those revisions that will illuminate water run off on the neighbors property i want to point out based on dbis comment they've asked that the plan note that drainage from the deck and down parts will be connected the

revised plan has to that effect and it will, included. >> counselor if you do remind me how much higher is the new retaining wall versus the retaining wall which was destroyed. >> and highest point the retaining wall is 5 feet the western point that is 2 and a half over the original wall. >> 2 and a half feet over the original wall. >> uh-huh. >> i'm going to ask dbi about math later thank you. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> go ahead i'd like i'll ask your question. >> it's okay. i'm good.

>> if the wall was two feet when you started and torn down 5 feet eaten on top of you add 6 feet this would make the new wall 11 but had the original wall been sustained to plus 6 equals 8 where to you measure from what end and where is the math clearer versus fuzzy. >> you mean the conditions are hard to prove 0 only what we've heard and so the code actually, i if i could get the overhead i'd like show you the san francisco building co planning addresses fences chapter four the fences on the property line

showing shall not be higher than 10 feet and 10 feet from sidewalk will not be higher than 10 feet measured from the level of existing adjacent ground the general area prior to improvement of the properties that are a fence or railing placed on top of the a retaining wall should be measured from the it up u top of the wall so this section tells us you'll measure this fence from the it up u top of the retaining wall not the new retaining wall so we're you know it is - if they put the fence in as you said or the wall the same height and put a 6 feet fence on top of it it would be if'y.

>> what is confusing what is originally if a wall is a wall is two feet at all two feet of dirt behind it you raise the wall it 5 feet and fill in the dirt behind it now the dirt is 3 feet higher our measuring from a different basis so you know create our own code. >> you should show the existing code and a lot of people do those types of projects we see a lot of retaining wall on 3 sides and the grading of the landscaping people are spending a lot of money in yards i've seen this all of that needs to be reflected on the plans the neighbors sometimes love it and hate it we sesee people

spending a lot of money and stuff like this it is common we expect that it shown properly on drawings and drainage and stuff like that and go through a process nothing really against it as long as it is all designed and shown properly on the design. >> so would you say that the core it seems to me two core flaws one core flaw neither party choose to do a survey exactly where the lot line is so and then the other core flaw that was no permit pulled on a wall that should have had a permit and if it was the ambiguity would be a lot more clearer to all involved.

>> i will agree are there is also sections to the building code pour 4 feet or less not needing a permit so a lot of landscape contractor they think i do one last week there is that we then are in a position we're talked with precipitates owners and the photos on height we use the google we have to try to get communication going onramp both sides and try your best to figure out but the retaining wall is annoying this neighbor if at the can agree on the height of the fence maybe that will take care of it. >> thank you very much. >> mr. duffy obviously the argument is go

driven by this wall and the probability the intent for the permit holders to do this wall he wants to level out this yard hard to tell from the drawings for him to do that then he has to place retaining wall on the other two property lines. >> he's done that i believe. >> yeah. >> i believe yeah. >> 3 sided. >> i was going to interrupt someone i thought that was understood we're looking at the photos is basically like a baseline you come back from the backyard and have 3 sides and then you know do something with the soil to landscape to put in

plants or whatever. >> the permit holder is asking us if we deny the appeal there they're asking us to condition the permit for the plugging up the loopholes which you and i know they shouldn't have done in the first place and adding the drainage they want to do ; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> you want them to tie it to a sewer line. >> yeah. i did see the note on this plan they have submitted it does say that i if read it prior to making the statement but they were connect for decks and roofs to sewer system that's on there this is one of the issues a this is a why we're getting so much

water bunk what it is always better to speak to the neighbors before you start it didn't happen i don't have have problem with stone retaining walls don't work forever someone wants to do something different if the neighbor obviously didn't like the project i can see why he was upset at the start i would encourage them to plan they're talking about but code wise from dbi was if i can give the neighbor any you know dbi did look at this it went battery a couple of times before the drainage was taken to be that it will to be approved from our geotech engineer. >> at the contacted him after

the appeal was filed. >> okay. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to clarify i wasn't clear the heefth of the fence is 10 feet this is the permit holders property in this case they're proposing a health that is 6 feet above the grade as they additional it based on the previously existing grade and representations of the permit holder is that they increased the height thought about 2 and a half feet at the northeast corner from 2 and a half retaining wall to a 5 foot retaining wall when the height of the fence it is grade but typically applied that to be

preexisting grade the lower height 2 and a half above the neighbors property zero for purposes of measuring and 10 feet blow that they're doing less than this this is a code compliant fence worst case scenario is a matter of reducing is one feet 10 feet belief grades on the appellants property but as it is before you this does appear to be code compliant and i've not heard anything that would lead me to building otherwise. >> your close but the one photo they're showing not only the wall the new wall you but the fence to the adjacent property as you can see the differential that is 4 feet. >> that will be unfortunately, we don't have the previous conditions situation we're in.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> mr. duffy has one more point. >> sorry commissioners one more thing i shove mentions the work was done without a building permit so the concrete was powder without special inspectors i would ask as well that the permit holders be give us some sort of x-ray that it was the rear bar was installed properly to guarantee that wall is you know with the rae bars we again get to see it ask that will added on as well. >> commissioner fung i know you agree with that. >> that's why their strengthening it in 4 applause we'll need it as evidence i don't have a problem as i mentioned it was supported

without the benefit of a building inspector commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> that's too bad i'm not totaling supportive you know small business does something without a permit the point is if we don't do this the water will continue to come through from the place especially, if they fill it up higher than the pressure is greater so there's an issue there the question of whether we would do what the appellant wants to revoke this permit is a code compliant if we revoke this

permit likely to come back the same form one way or another. >> i'm inclined at this time to accept not everybody will be happy but we need to at least keep the water off the appellants property. >> so what are you proposing one condition. >> condition the permit. >> i agree it is sad that the permit holders is awarded for doing work without permit and consulting the neighbor the fact the poles were put in gives me an idea the person was not informed they campground wee what they were doing i feel comfortable the department requested the roof drains go to the city pipes and. >> the water from the roof as

well. >> if you're sensitive of this approach you'll be adopting the plans as a condition because it includes above those items. >> i'll stick with the x-ray. >> i just to your point mr. president, i would like to make sure the conditions of the x-ray is there because as you said anyone that pits poles in that wall didn't know what they're doing so they may not have known even as far as putting the proper rebar that is critically important along with adopting the plan. >> going to move to deny excuse me. to grant the appeal and to condition the permit on

the items we've talked about the plugging up the poles and the tide in of other drainage lines to the sewer as indicated the drawings and also, they have to demonstrate to dbi that there's rebar inside of the concrete wall. >> commission the other question though do they fill the repeat holes they'll have to be on the appellants property and so the construction we'll not deal with. >> okay. >> vice president functioning two of the 3 things are revised on the permit is from the board on the adoption off those it will refer to those and the

third one what the board has to duo issue a revised permits and that's what you're doing so you have that - >> can we indicate that the permit holder will need to provide x-ray documentation of reimbursement stole to dbis approval. >> okay. >> i'd like to indicate in issue with that. >> all right. >> does that make sense madam director. >> yes. >> i can reiterate but i ends to grant the appeal to issue the permit on the condition the realized plans dated december 7, 2015, be adopted and on the

condition that the permit holders provide prove that the reinforced. >> reduced was placed the wall. >> okay go is there a basis for to motion. >> it would be based on the nov. >> this addresses the notice of violation? okay. >> thank you then by commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson that he commissioner swig that motion carries that basis thank you very much we will move on calling item 6

kilroy versus the department of building inspection we're going to switch city attorney's we have a different city attorney joining us for this one item tom owen will be here in a moment the property at 1800s owen street protesting of a project development report rewarding the transit impact fee for the amount stated and in a moment we'll hear from the appellant the attorney for the appellant. >> i wish to make the same tloesh i've hired reuben, junius & rose reuben, junius & rose is recommendation of before the appearance will not have an

effect on my decision. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioner honda a congratulations and i'm john with reuben, junius & rose representing the appellant in this case, i need to put some things the record accident first one is the jurisdiction issue which is a 12 page limit and the city spent 6 pages on jurisdiction i hope to address that in a matter of a couple of minutes the first issue in order to build a project you need to pull a site permit to the extent the code compliant fees be paid at the time you must pay those fees even if you don't believe their owed which is our x-rays when you pay those of you wish

to protest those fees you file a protest then the protest requires you noticed a hearing and come here in 15 years we're here at the board of appeals jurisdiction to know that the building code we end up here to discuss the matters there is a discrepancy between the planning code and building code with the authority relates to the calculation versus the spits with the keep scope the impact over and over disputes over others calculations of the fee or impact requirement is based on but regardless because we're asking this board to find based on an oneself criteria that was imploded by ocii and dbi the fee was i think correctly calculated they apply it this is the proper venue for

the appeal we challenge the fee as an ocii breach or default under the o pa, however, in california champagnes of the administrative is a prerequisite to filing an action noted in the 2002 downtown plan case if we simply sued ocii directly that i'm not suggesting we are not or are filing a lawsuit we should have filed a appeal so the governor has a changing chance to get it right this is what the authentication administrative hearing is about the parties agree the projects in mission bay south are special in the brief acknowledge the redevelopment projects are not subject to conflicting louis of the city in terms of local laws

that conflict point redevelopment plan and the documents are void projects the california one of the basic principles of california land use the landmark cases are key over the city of berkley and the city of berkley from 1978 the legislative proximities the field of redevelopment therefore the california health and safety didn't authorize the charter city to administer this even by an initiative local building codes or zoning orientals governing the community redevelopment agencies are not applicable the local our local 2002 downtown plan speaks to this although the redevelopments agencies were all abolished it

is unchanged it speaks to the situation clear and plain language in march of 1996 bob determined i'm quoting where a local ordinance conflicts with the community development plan the ordinance bylaw must yield it is necessary to examine each plan and the it is pursuant to the plan to determine whether or not a conflict exists closed quote that is part of zoning administrator opinion is still the books the sf r a redevelopment agency but the city seize it as a must the redevelopments plan it an enforceable commenting commitment on the other hand, there is no question that this board as

jurisdiction of the planning code the t d example f according cot planning code i'll quoting from the opinion this remains the law it is necessary to examine each individual plan and other participation agreements to dressing room whether or not a conflict exists the city claims it is clear the city's position conflicts with the motorbike south development plan the o pa your task should be straightforward to proximity the planning department in favor of the organization pa and we submit it exhibits to go with the 12 pages and the documents are fixed the parties appear to agree only two 2 types of fees they are existing fees, new fees, and

increased francis scott key fees as those are defined in the redevelopment plan it's the t d i f creates a conflict with the redevelopments plan and must veiled so let's go through the parties agree the t d index f didn't exist of the plan clearly spells out those fees no disagreements the t d i f is not a new fee of the redevelopment plan the t d i f can't be new it existing in 1992 and it would be listed it didn't do that and finally a it can't say be an increased fee the relevant plan

of the language is a three to 4.9 sub c sub two i have more i'd like to finish i'll do that on rebuttal. >> how much more are you thinking. >> one ahead sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please are t ded i f was not a fee the counter fee was an existing fee and employed with the mission bay setting this period has run and after 2011 that fee politics with the increases as an increased fee this is not one of the types of

of the fees comfort women that conflicts with that plan the redevelopments plan nop a is the imposition of the city regulations they'll materially increase the cost of experience with the plan $6 million is a material increase. >> thank you counselor. >> thank you. we'll hear in ocii now. >> we're going to hear in dbi my apologies. >> even appealed against dbi we'll have mr. morales speak from ocii as you may know 9 things from $6 million plus of the t d i f have been retired to dbi thank you.

>> commissioner honpresident honda appendixes is the in the course of the trial agency to the redevelopment agency even though the redevelopment agency was desolved ocii has retained all the land use authority in order to enforce enforceable obligation the state has deemed to be still in effect and survive the disillusion of the redevelopment agency that are this this is fairly straightforward and to be simple and appellants council is made the arguments that we would make but i would like to start with

the jurisdictional question if you will i'll briefly describe ocii as the decision maker on land use has applied the redevelopment plan as it relates to this large office building in mission bay setting this office building is controlled the mission bay south redevelopment plan and the agreement in reviewing the project ocii has determined that the streents applies as a new increased fee the redevelopment plan incorporates the planning code in this respect saying that the redevelopment plan allows and authorizes ocii the in the course of the trial agency to impose fees and actions such the

t d index f permit was issued in mission bay south the jurisdictional question is this the building code is it quite clear that board of appeals in reviewing the t.i.d. f has a limit review in addition 9 planning code i said was noorpd by reference through the redevelopment plan is even nor explicit it says that the board of appeals didn't have the authority to review the legality of the challenge to t d i f and more explicit and says that the board does not have the jurisdiction to review whether or not the imposition of the fee is fair under the law so under the city laws that create this body and the

governance of its jurisdiction it is clear that the board does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the gentleman appointment the in the course of the trial agency is experiencing the authority under the redevelopment plan and in several cases there is been before this board it was cited in the brief to you this board determined that land use decisions made by the redevelopment agency and the in the course of the trial agency are not subject to tto the revi decision about why it meets the redevelopment plan is essential

beyond our purview we ask you to - i want to briefly look at the substance of the matter under the redevelopment plan the appellants argument i don't know pits this in a limbo not existing in 1998 not angle increased fee so it didn't permanent have any status under the law and naufs ocii says this is an increased fee in 1998 at the time of the adoption of the redevelopment plan the tdif, however, we pointed out the brief there is another possible

agreement that could be made this is a new fee in 1998 the fee didn't apply in mission bay south and therefore didn't cause an increased fee but a new fee the full amount of the fee applies in either case the fee has been appropriately - within the jurisdiction of a successor agency the appellants point out in our brief the tdif the ordinance that the board of supervisors adopted was incorporated into the redevelopment plan suggests that the redevelopment plan does not impose the tdif

in fact, the tdif ordinance starting in 2004 when that was reprimand was clearly preserve the authority of the successor agency to impose the fee and it says that the fee is governed from the ordinance it's the fee is governed by the redevelopment plan the determination of how much the scope of the application of that fee is to be determined by the redevelopment plan and in this case, the successor agency hsa as the decision maker on the project has the land use authority over the project, has determined that is fee should be as i stated an increased fee under the redevelopment plan and we urge to reject the

jurisdiction and the successor agency has followed the redevelopment plan and the meaning of the plan i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. morales, the your brief didn't provide great details on the lofb of our probation how do you guys come to to that between the 6 something and the 3 something. >> commissioner fung i've auditing u alluded to it as an increased fee pursue the agency determines that tdif was an existing fee of $5 at the time of redevelopment plan adoption in so 98 and if you look at the redevelopment plan although it

clearly does state that 3 existing fees are in effect of the date of adoption in 1998 for childcare and schools and art that provision also says that subject to the following provision the redevelopments plan, which refers to the ability of the agency to impose new and increased fees where the new and increased fees occur are imposed over the 10 year freeze think fees and actions of the redevelopment plan provides for are fees of citywide applicability and not redundant of the master developer to provide affordable housing and open space and first of all, the reason there was a 10 year freeze was to encourage private investment the early years of redevelopment

plan redevelopment plans as you may know are do not the generation of flu property tax the area that can be used to pay for infrastructure and other related activities to allow the project area to develop appropriately under the plan so the 10 years was part of that incentive to create a catalyst for private investment and as a result we didn't impose the fees during those first 10 years. >> that's it. >> thank you. >> okay public comment if there is anyone that wants to speak under public comment. >> seeing none, we'll have

rebuttal. >> board member commissioner fung i'm glad you having asked that question and at worst-case the tdif was a well-known fee in 1998 the 1988 recuse building case was plastered over the papers and all over everywhere everyone go knew about, 1987 and choose not to exclude if in the redevelopment plan the recausation of the pro rationed can't start until 10 years after 2001 which is 2011 and the numbers are dramatically different if there were the case we've argued the tdif will have to be there's under the redevelopment plan is none of those any attempt to impose that

results in a conflict and it precludes any material of the increased costs in conclusion i'll say some of the things that mr. morales mentioned the mission bay south was not a trick by the outside force the board of supervisors and mayor approved it in 1998 at the time it was not at all certain the streets of mission bay were paved with gold and the developers pay unlimited fees on the contrary the deposition required a legal finding by the excessive decision makers the area was blighted so the redevelopment plan excuse me. law and finance in 1998 the city acting under the hive officials adopted a policy that made bvkd by law that limited the imposition of developers at moab

even so this is not a case where free rides are given to property owners like the melrose and other facilities district payment are still patsdz on this parcel by the second i have owners we're asking that as relied on in good faith by the appellant thank you. >> oh, actually, i have more time. >> it is a - that's a list i want this read into the record no substance okay the record a list of citations i provided. >> on the board okay. >> if you want a copy.

>> thank you. >> mr. morales. >> members i would conclude by saying that mr. reuben argument is a legal argument about the exemplifying and this is exactly what this board doesn't have the jurisdiction to review and we can gotdif and this is exactly this board doesn't have the jurisdiction to review and we can go through but that argument that fact that removes this matter from your jurisdiction thank you. >> mr. morales. >> so what is the basis of redevelopment tax increment and the difference which was blighted and then the result of a new tax after a new building and the land it improved and the

benefit goes into the redevelopment land; correct? >> that's correct. >> is that still comborlsz. >> yes. this is enforced through the ownership participation agreement that is an agreement between the agency and the master developer and passed along through assumes and as i understand agreement to individual owners of the property that is being developed now in various blocks and lots in mission bay south. >> so the mere existence of the ongoing tax increment structure which will character this as redevelopment agency land even though the redevelopment agency has been gone and the successor agency takes on the continuing role of the redevelopment agency to capture the tax increment. >> yes. the state as clearly

and inclusively determined the motorbike project needs to be completed it is an enforceable obligation that survived the dissolution the tax increment authority is retained to use the tax increment to repay the developer for payments that is made related to public infrastructure all of those are embed the contracts and obligation which quite frankly again are not before this board they or agreement that are if their say is challenge it will only be a civil remedy the court but the participation agreement and whether or not it authorized the fee like the tdif is simple not before you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter

is submitted. >> so i think being a graduate of redevelopments agency complirgs commission and working or working with the redevelopment agency i have some experience and i don't know if i have knowledge but experience. >> and one of the special opportunities created by redevelopment that was an island that pratsdz by itself not subject to planning certainly planning codes but pretty much redevelopment did was it need to do to correct the blight and others 17 reasons i forgot what the cree to correct that opportunity the area the first

place and put it out of the jurisdiction of the city which made it very convenient for i will say us to do our work and mr. morales to do his work and one of the reasons i asked about the survivor ability of the tax structure really indicates that the redevelopments agency has survived and survived the demise the form of the with the jurisdiction over with occ therefore i don't believe we have jurisdiction over this case so i would move we would deny the appeal based on the jurisdiction issue. >> is that a motion. >> yeah. i think so i rarely

make a motion i just did with reason and thoughts. >> call the roll unless others commissioners that have something to say. >> i was going to talk about the mixed results of the effort but that's all right. we'll let the history be the judge. >> okay. so all call roll by commissioner swig to uphold the fee that the board lacks jurisdiction. >> commissioner vice presiden fung commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson

okay. that motion carries with a vote to 3 to 2. >> mocha we take a break. >> okay. we'll break we're reassuming the wednesday, january 27, 2016, meeting the san francisco board of appeals we're now calling item 7 david's those good versus the planning commission the motion holders is howard llp the properties on howard street appeals court the issuance mark sanchez depreciation of compliance and request for sense to construct a over basement approximately 2. plus with 3 are

one hundred 33 between of ground floor commercial space into under side reduction of ground level wind cutters and height and bulk limitation under the planning code section this is the planning commission motion this matter is on for further consideration heard on december 9th and continued to allow commissioner wilson to participate the vote commissioner vice president fung moved to you uphold the motion that the parklet explicit error the vote was to to 22 to one and commissioner wilson absent because 3 votes are neatest to overturn the planning commission action the motion failed commissioner swig moved to continue to tonight when all 5 board members are here for the

vote this is the typical practice in cases where an absence commission can effect this is in the appeal i believe commissioner wilson has confirmed she's reviewed the video and read the materials; is that correct? >> yes. >> unless pa board member has a question for the party we'll resume deliberations okay. >> point of order. >> come forward meeting. >> sue hester the point of order that the board has required under city and state law to view the entire e ar when you deliberately when

you have this the last time only draft eir was an issue this is a response which you explicit approve it has the dialogue between people like me and the planning department want needs to be done to get sufficient eir my comments are at the end 16 pages because you were required to review an eir your action at the last meeting is for the proper you voting rights voted without having the eir in front of the you and therefore you must vacate and deliberate on this all of you and people if the public member of the public must be able to explore who is the comments and responses with you

that has not been done i've submitted my brief conducted e concluded both the law san francisco administrative code, the brief that went beatings between me and ms. sgrmg there the record i attached any brief to this hearing the documents that you should have been explaining how we came to this and he i believe you must go back and have rehearing not a row vote but rehearing based on ceqa and the admin code i'm willing to answer any questions and the i i didn't srony that td

and week after mr. osgood signed a briefly and at the same time provided trying to get from the redevelopment agency on the 12, 13 and 14 i got access to the files if the redevelopment agency consideration of the gap building which i was trying to have in my brief which i couldn't i am of the opinion you must follow the law and the law is you can't have a hearing before you have the full eir and it is unfair to the parties if it is provided after the fact it is unfair it me and mr. osgood and

the commissioners one of the things i'll hope if i read carefully the entire responses you'll see that commissioner swig's issues and commissioner honda's were pulled up and rescued in the comments at the very end thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. bryan would you like to respond to that. >> well, i example the first point is that we haven't heard the parties the matter we've not heard from the pirates party to the thirty 9 on the issue and, of course, nothing to prevent the parties from commenting on the response to the questions because they themselves would

have known about the eir but as - a matter of precaution the commission could allow the members of the public to provide information tonight they would like to provide i under the comments and i'll say to remind ms. hester the deliberations were not closed at the last meeting this matter was continued you didn't make a decision on the matter this decision will be made do i believe you've received the comments and reviewed them? >> i'm sorry you can't speak. >> the record was not closed by any action or order of the board the matter was continued because

as you've done in the past there were a 2 to 2 vote the motion failed and you decided as you've always done for the matter to continue with the 5 commissioner i'll certainly not object to you're letting the public comment comment. >> can we restrict the comments to the comments. >> (laughter). i believe so then you can deliberate >> okay. >> so the possibility will be to allow public comment from anyone here specifically on the responses to comments document which was part of the environmental review. >> so we'll hear that with a show of hands who will participate and comment on this.

>> ms. osgood you're a party so it's not appropriate but other people that are for the parties to the appeal so only a couple of people. >> please because of the size - >> okay. so whoever wants to speak first please step forward we'll limit to 2 minutes because of the length of the agenda. >> they want to speak please come to the platform please. mr. protest none has a comment to the responses i was not told the comments to responses were provided to the commission i got the e-mail i didn't i don't know if so city attorney september it to the planning department or not what i would like to refresh your memory to is that the end

of the comments and responses my part at the end has is inherit two and 3 you have excluding information about stepping down to the waterfront that's the issue commissioner president honda and commissioner swig we are talking about at the last meeting how this is a drastic difference how the waterfront has been developed he was asking get the files from the redevelopment commission talk about the real heights i was aware of how that gap building was skruptd over years of discussion this is right next door to the gap building and that should have informed you if you had questions you would think if you read my comments you'll understand that those comments were raised consistent by me and other people as well

they raised it slightly in a different manner so how comments and responses provided information you didn't have at that last hearing i think that is improper to say oh, none can be told you're changing the documents. >> okay ms. hester. >> i have 15 seconds left i think i have now 20 seconds left and so you have to have a record that the public knows is the record that appellants know is the record i had no way of knowing after i did this thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> mrs. o good you're a party to this appeal so you can't speak under public comment.

>> you're recommending the parties make comment. >> i'll protest please don't start the clock. >> please continue. >> i didn't receive the permit holders brief on the scheduled date i have it, it is postmarked the date i was populated to receive it i got it the yesterday or the day before. >> which item number are you referring to. >> the brief from gibson son dunn. >> which matter there are two separate matters if i'll correct we're back to the matter that was heard 3 weeks ago.

>> i don't know this was so irregular. >> not irregular it was you're just brought up was for the variance okay. >> okay. >> the commissioners who you are speaking mentioned can we restart the clock please okay. i'm on the thirty 9 was brought up the comments and was not addressed by the planning department the project does meet the section rear yard exception that mandates the configuration is adequately and error to the residential units and no open space provided the project fails to meet several urban design policies and objective 3 modification of new development to compliment the city pattern and the resources to be conserved the neighborhood environment and

promote harmony in the transition between new and older buildings and policy 3.2 avoid extreme craft and other characteristics that cause new buildings to stand out - i have a graphic to stand out and excess of their importance policy 3.6 relate to the bulk of the buildings to the scale of the development and avoid an overwhelmingly and dominating porn's in new construction obviously 16 create and maintain interesting urban landscapes and materials included amenities to the ground floor to create pedestrian interest

due to the reduced setback in minimal magnificence between the towers the frontage if have an engaging pedestrian experience those are all thirty 9 issues not accurately and the the case of abusive the planning department discretion thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone else to speak on the responses comments. >> i'll invite others to speak. >> you want to hear them next or the members of the public. >> hear the public first. >> okay. >> thank you. i'm david live on olsen street the plaza building here's my card thank you i wanted to make a few comments building on the comments from the previous speakers as a residents of the neighborhood

again, we are i see a lot of people wearing stickers housing not parking we don't have objections our neighborhood has embraced the density all the buildings this is not the issue how does that building blend with the existing structures stepped to the bay the community you know the vote on 8 washington certainly said that higher buildings and directly on the waterfront is not appealed we should adhere to the guidelines that were established under years ago i'm stunned this thing got approved without the setbacks and the variances it dpaing so we have no to that this building is asking for things that doesn't make sense

and the nature the neighborhood stepping down to the bay and the housing affordability action act and making available for housing this argument seems bad relative to again, the fact we're welcoming krushgs construction just a matter of why they should get those variances. >> excuse me. i thought we were asking for public comment specifically on the comments and responses to the eir we were limiting the public comment and this is not working so far as i am concerned, we're rehearing the matter. >> so anyone that is speaking specifically regarding the public comment from the last hearing? if so, please step up >> ms. murphy if you want to

speak please step forward. >> good evening mary murphy council to the property owner project sponsor i think there is confusion the audience at the moment it seems to commissioner lazarus comments that we've been hearing people relitigate, if you will, the section thirty 9 approval and it would be in fairness people have not yielded been speaking to the rfp available on the website and available for many, many months and a subject of appeal at the board of supervisors where it uphold 11 nothing unanimously by the board of supervisors but people not speaking to that i'll put the question whether or not in fairness we have a lot of supporters that want to speak about the benefits the project and speak to the thirty 9 i want to put to the boarded if you board wants to reopen to let

everybody speak and thank you for having me continue this it seems in fairness we've heard a number of people speaking about the thirty 09. >> we've made the decision to go hear the picking up public specifically. >> if i may i appreciate the counsels advise i go back to some was said this is part of public record and nobody was in speaking to it the last hearing we may not have it in our hand anyone can bring up so not deliberately left out. >> if anyone's wants to speak directly recommend related to the comments and comment for the

variance decision and people will be able to speak more broadly. >> i'm maefrth a resident and i've submitted letters for the board. i guess my comments and responses to the comments was you know, i received a postcard the mail and did my best to follow the guideline i feel a monk monkey whenever was thrown in my responses i've not been given the knowledge or necessary to respond as a citizen and sorrow myself cheated as a retained >> any other public comment there commissioners returning to deliberation. >> actually, i want to hear from commissioner wilson.

>> not to put you on the spot. >> were there further questions of staff i see that planning has been expanding their staff here there were a number of questions raised last time that if you weren't satisfied with the answers you can be now. >> i'll make comments or ask questions. >> and maybe i'll pulling put in in the former of questions i felt liefks preaching last time i didn't like it very much mr. sanchez. >> so the issue i'm going to take up 3 issues where i disagree with commissioner vice

president fungs position that planning didn't error the first issue and we saw a photo of building which will fit on block fully in view the most important promenade in san francisco and we've looked it is a matter of the record of a larger view of the promenade and of the front wall of the embarcadero and every building i've looked this closely since the deliberation every building is stepped up to the plate back only this building in its design form this block which has had no effort to be stepped back last week every other building you can go to the rights or left you

can't finds f them it is stepped up to the plate back the high region what was planning how does planning justify that this building can is it correct out in it's mass and block without any relationship to anything with an within a quarter to a half-mile along the important promenade of the embarcadero. >> first i'll say that the department shares the concern and shares the exempt we will have great design ♪ location and the department worked with the project sponsor to achieve this and the two most important limitations on the property is primarily the lot dimensions the on the gap building is a through lot they

have much more room in order to do the stepping so have a reasonable plan in that locational aspect of this which we discussed last time this building is can be agreed is not directly on the embarcadero it is on the stewart street with the operational in front of f it not fully developed but could be developed the future the department i have today on addition to tilly chang who worked on the case and jeff the current planning director and one of the staff architect that worked on the deliberations so go into detail how to resolve but look at the beverage that was created by the other buildings where we step back and have it reflected in a meaningful way that was the some

of the design goals the department but i'll see if our staff has additional comments that can be added >> a followup on the subject isn't is sometimes that the building shouldn't be built i mean like fitting the square peg into the round hole and the property owner must be forced to recognize that in fact, from the square peg the round hole and the scope of the building is simply didn't work and so why force this is something that i feel has gone on here but like our opinion on this because you have a big block i didn't building next to buildings with setbacks. >> i'll agree buildings should

not be built other architects have that at some point but our responsibility to bring it to a point it could be sford to get the design revisions and maybe jocelyn can discuss in greater details to get to the point we thought it was supportable if fit into the hole and yeah, so i'm going to turn it over to our design staff and better articulate that. >> i'll have like i said 3 so two more questions after awards him hard-pressed to add to that the pardon in design consistently the highest level of staff it started out as a

non-complying building we first saw the project come in the door it was - we were debating the relevance of that height and how supportable and very vigorous discussion what result the building you see before you today, the other discussion most resist i resists from the day it came in we're establishing the street wall height that was appropriate for a building not an on the embarcadero but close enough often the embarcadero and that's partially the pattern you're referring to the gap building and the ron con the 75 or one feet along the

embarcadero that is formed by you know the - there's a building zoned and 64 feet our dislikes went to this probably will be available for sometime even though a tier back in the embarcadero it needs to respect that street wall and height that data we requested a setback another that height as a southern dimension that was significant in addition to other options we were exploring with could the project sponsor apply or develop that paper on a pubically owned sites in the embarcadero we believe what resulted from 9

iteration it manifested witnesses the embarcadero for the foreseeable future with that building intooej the future sits on the embarcadero and you know from that that module development i think the project sponsor and the architect can describe it more but a building that scales based on that height that's why you see those kinds of building modules on the elevation it relates relates to the basic wall setbacks and repeats that is that a stellar building i think so one of the believes that a flagship was done work in

the city for over 50 years continues to do excellent work and fits the context of its time and i think that you know it is a building that will be i think a building that belongs on the waterfront. >> so you paid reference to the fact it is half plain clothes back and other building in front of it how wide how deep from the embarcadero is that available lands with the 65 height. >> it's a triangle lot. >> how deep. >> so from stewart street 2 and a half feet and overhead82 and a half feet and overhead please.

>> incidental i'd like to take the opportunity in a chang this image was the material submitted to you that shows that the subject building is one and 48 from the embarcadero whereas the gap building this building here is 12 feet from the embarcadero so whereas from all the images shows that it is indeed on the waterfront and will be very prominently viewed it is significantly setback with the dpw site this has development potential and heard in dpw they're interested in developing that the future is the paper that is more akin to the adjacent parcel that is existing directly on the embarcadero you have not answered my question the one

building is setback one and 28 feet how deep is that papering parcel from east toe west. >> you mean how wide and exactly. >> with you say it is 75 feet? i'm just guessing i did not measure >> it appears it is triangle parcel is tapers. >> it is narrow and didn't require an advance any point is this you know regardless of whether it is venerable or ndev n

if it is. >> it is illicit impossible to set it back that's what this is my issuellicit impossible to set it back that's what this is my issicit impossible to set it back that's what this is my issueicit impossible to set it back that's what this is my isscit impossible to set it back that's what this is my issit impossible to set it back that's what this is my isst impossible to set it back that's what this is my iss impossible to set it back that's what this is my issimpossible to set it back that's what this is my issue the. >> i understand absolutely understand this building the proposed building is one and 28 feet off the embarcadero the prospective it is on the embarcadero arguably but a piece of land in front of it you look at the narrowness is this a possibility how would there is a possibility of stepping back that front building on the embarcadero to continue the neighborhood atmosphere which extends a quarter of a mile in both directions i'll answer that

question i want to clear up the misconception that buildings need to step down to the waterfront that's not the design element the intent of the urban design for the conservation of building step down it is perfectly acceptable to have a building straight frontage on the embarcadero tbs a desired effect this strong street wall but the back buildings as. >> receive from the back waterfront step up and step back to the downtown core they get higher the buildings are not to be stepped down but the conservati

convolution of building. >> i want to raise a question on one of your statements earlier. >> you lost me when you talked about this building having slots horizontally is a certain scale i don't see that at all how does that work in your opinion. >> i'm going to defer that question if i may to the projector architect if you don't mind. >> i think they'll be more articulate and knowledgeable did you have another question. >> i have a different topic. >> i want to add one more thing to the stepping as a matter of a point of comparison the gap building that you kind of have been using a benchmark

the tower is the same location and approximately same height if we get a benchmark. >> you remember i heard the gap building and hills brothers so - >> in one form of another. >> the computer. >> if they fill the bay in (laughter). >> we need the computer. >> yeah. could you switch to the computer please. there you go. >> so okay. i think i can respond in a little bit mower clarity i hope to some of the questions first, i think that david winning slow stated it

clearly we have a diagram that shows the notion those have improved stepping down to the waterfront and in orange higher than 75 feet and the yellow is the gap building slightly higher or close and the pal yellow the building directly on the embarcadero north of howard those don't step their mid-rise they include on the dpw lot but on the other side of the setting up the piers and two-story restaurants that were built if rincon park as to the specific question of the setbacks and how the slots in the building relates to those

we've heard a lot of times this building has no setbacks. >> the sicken not up the pictures are not tracking. >> perhaps the mouse is not working have you tried. >> it is advancing on this screen but not your screen out of sync with each other. >> there's a hardcopy. >> can you switch back to that and see if you can see it.

>> well, yes is that possible to do that with the overhead sorry technical difficulties. >> let's try one more time sorry for the delay okay so the horizontal slots are an

important part of the design that relates to both willfulal setbacks ensue the reducing the mass of building so it is true that in some cases the flsh on both sides and many of the setbacks the building on all four sides as 23 feet depending on which side of building you're referring to stepping down the shaded in orange show us the amount they vary and the results is mostly the results of staff and leadership over many years and it is a critical part of design concept it both has literal setbacks with the

terraces. >> i have further. >> does that answer your question commission commission. >> sure i'm fine. >> i would like the same setback i saw the photo and the garage juxtaposed to the and the gap building setback and the postal of the garage at the same height action the pedestal of the gap building i kind of like that but a different story any second question mr. sanchez so what again in having to sleep on this for a week or so the issue of the open space and i guess this is to the south and the argument that well, the park which is on the land really

gives the space the air, light and breathing room to the renal apartments and assumption keyword that assemblies that land will not be built upon is extremely makes me nervous because assuming for the rest of times and as long as this building will be standing that nothing unless it is jarthd that will be built on this lands i find with all due respect the fault with the planning department in that piece of judgment that the there is accurate open space because there's a on a assumes the park will not be built what about that assumes. >> that's a concern that

certainly it calls for speculation never development for many lots never build anything there this is now 2016 and they're building something that in addition to the arguments that have been valid because of low probability of development on the lands the planning code and the residential district the minimum rear yard requirement will be 15 feet and so they're providing that i believe the minimum at all levels from that rear yard line so they're kind of paying respect to it and they should the unbelievable happen not require an enclosure of the windows and the use of building on one hundred haven is right on

the property line or close to the property line i think that what they put us here with the setbacks with the kind of lack of likely hood it does address those concerns. >> even with the opportunity their might be building. >> if that's the case then you know certainly we would look at other issues under the planning codes didn't deal with tower separation any tower that is on that property would need to be calculated at a distance from this tower i don't have the dimensions making maybe the project manager did but that provides a bracketing room between proposed development and the subject property. >> and the further tap eric garcetti setback is certainly

mitigati that. >> the dimensions of those setbacks under the west and south side of the building a 15 foot setback and a parcel to the west a 25 so that's a total of 35 more than the minimal requirement and as you may know the zoning districts in a the gap building is over one and 60 feet on setback is 40 percent of the tower it becomes close to the fact that the 25 foot standard requirement and the two properties to the south that you mentioned one is the gap the portion that actually touches our side is crisscrossed in favor of the multiply properties

the triangle portion as you may know has no street frontage a dimension given the setback of this code the tower on that that side is a foothold i appreciate the values go up and people start skwooegz into new pays unto in manhattan they're in the one and 20 foot towers. >> does that answer your question commissioner swig. >> that's fine. >> a third question the subject was raised last week, i building the brief that this building is acceptable because it is like many other buildings in the downtown core but the downtown core he agree if it were sitting on the corner

of bush and montgomery i think that auditorium will hold true because there is significant density there is tightness and that urban congestion you've made reference to but i took expectation i find fault with our reading on this this is not the downtown core it sits on the embarcadero and again, there is the assumption that there might be. >> building built on this small sliver between it and the embarcadero that's like the assumption i think that exists on the south side and this wall will stay in place for the rest of the time with the embarcadero and therefore, it is really not a different situation so how do you elevate that i mean right now it is open and probably stay wide open for

quite some time that's my assumption how do you base that f this is a similar situation as the downtown core and again, i throw out montgomery and . >> i think i'll clarify any previous comments it is kind of consistent and similar with the 3-d zoning district. >> stretches to van ness the properties is i've said one and 50 van ness are the c-3 but at the edge west versus east we see similar requests for opera buildings and residential building downtown you must provide a rear yard or seek an exception it is difficult i can't help but think of a c-3

residential project not requested a rear yard exception or modification in some way i think this something we need to clarify throughout the downtown district not just the downtown core if that clarifies. >> where else the downtown district a board and important promenade like the embarcadero on which the other side is san francisco is the barrier and the entry to san francisco bay area that is kind of makes me scratch any head butts argument. >> i think you're right this is iconic you said about the proposed view that welcomes you to san francisco but you know in terms of the step back i know that it was addressed eloquently much better than i could do the zoning prospective is really the

stepping is manifested not through the the discretionary dine design but manifested through the height limited so we have the stepping down the height limits as you get towards the bay that's why it the 65 feet and this property 200 feet so this is a code compliant project in regards to height they've so you get an exemption but they're not seeking a change to the height for this project certainly part of previous view the project but it does comply with the height limits established by the downtown. >> i have a question a lot of the my concerns at the last hearing were specific to not so much the design but the neighborhood and context is it

my imagination i look at the brief the original pictures railroad more stark and a wider building a week or two weeks it is blending with more colors z did some place go with their i make. >> the part of sponsors submittal they have made more color accurate renderings and have color samples to review. >> again, this is an extension from thirty 9 we're getting late into the evening we still have the other case to hear so, please keep it on point. >> i'll certainly try i suppose the images on the screen will not show it clearly but switch to the overhead this is

not a glass box but uses stone and glass that are in proportion that are appropriate this is a sample of the stone that's been proposed for that quite sometime we do apologize the reproduction of the images and the images we've chosen the stone a white and washed how the outing this was certainly not our intention if you switch to the overhead again, this shows the materiality of the building in a row we're concerned about the gap building a light limestone and brick and broujz our building as a light gray granite and wood and has glass and that's the next building in the sequence so actually entirely glass above the 16 floor. >> more to the point the slabs

between the levels were white last time now their brown and green and how did that happen if i'm looking at your drawings with the arrow i see a very mellow warm orange color that didn't look like it is orange to me and the drawings you're referencing is a dusk view the slots between the levels are clear actually, the slots between the levels wood and wood floors and a lot of glass so you're seeing the light in the building the displacement the material that is most viable visible is the stone and on the street shows the character it is a natural stone not frost glass or precast concrete.

>> my question is - >> okay. >> commission do you have any questions. >> yes. i have one last question ms. murphy this thirty percent is that anywhere. >> what. >> thirty percent affordable. >> the 33 well, this project is providing a in lieu of fee to 33 and 1/3rd percent this is required by law to have a 20 percent but the thinking outside the box volunteered to increase that to 33 and 1/3rd percent and i understand to confirm where is that in an agreement. >> we priority an agreement to 9 board of supervisors and it is part of public record we agreed

so we made that commitment no writing to the board of supervisors that's part of with respect to this project. >> thank you. >> so for just to follow up for public records since us are under oath their guaranteeing the 33 and 1/3rd is to be met. >> the building is built we'll pay the 33 and 1/3rd the same way we pay that? the the letter i'm sorry, i didn't bring it but submitted to the board of supervisors thank you, ms. murphy. >> no further questions? >> further comments? oh, sorry we spent a lot of time on this i feel it is fair we give the appellant a few minutes if they

have any questions >> mr. osgood anything to say. >> in regards we gave the project sponsor a lot of time so in all fairness. >> a couple of things in response real quick planning did not give this project a lot of care in fact, they've got all the way to a public hearings that was originally proposed nobody at planning stopped that i think we stopped that through our objections and planning commission said they would have voted for the huge building they've abused the

discretion and the eir itself notes that this i don't remember the exact words but points out this is essentially the first block the city that actually shows that you know it is 75 howard not one 75 howard and another point about the diagonal a dispute within the port and the dpw who owns that triangle in front the port said it's there's they've been trying to market it for decades they've having had no takers and the lot keeps getting smaller they put in the palms trees the height limit but the planning not kept up if someone tries to build a

60 foot building this will the permit holders will be here fighting this agency they're marketing thing that those embarcadero views so their somewhat disingenuous on this but the point it if this is approved there will be a 200 and 40 foot wall that refers to staff from the waterfront it is not stepping down so it is in our hands you know if you want to approve that kind of a first step i think we're take another look at developers rendering but it clearly does fit in with

the other buildings adjacentheoh the other buildings adjacentofi with the other buildings adjacenttfit in with the other buildings adjacent fit in with the other buildings adjacent these are problems they've brought on themselves the address a 45 howard it fronts they're calling this the rear and nobody has said anything about this this building it is up begins in office building this is the rear of the building thank you. >> thank you. >> commission. >> i think one comment to i think that bothers me i appreciate very, very much the intent of any developer that states any 33 percent this city needs affordable housing and this is a nice tasty carrot i'm

a supporter and of my background and today in this city having we have a housing shortage but i would raise the issue that we put aside that carrot because that that maybe temporary and fixed in another fashion what we are dealing with is a permanent ed face on the location of the san francisco bay i want to raise that commissioner president honda i believe it it was a similar issue on 8 washington that was a health limit issue. >> just to follow up on that it is a wonderful view we've

talked about that being iconic at the same time, we're long term san franciscans that was a view of the freeway to be honest we if we were going away. >> enjoying this beautiful space that was a free an eye soar ymca so i think at this point i hope the developers will continue to soften it up it won't stick out i applaud them for the 33 percent in lieu of and would hope strongly they'll follow through with that that will be my comment so can we take a vote are just take - >> there has to be a new motion the prior motion failed no action taken previously any motion needs to be made and i'll

remind you there is an abusive discretion a voted of 3 if you're going to modify or disapprove the planning commission we need a written motion to express the error or misuse of discretion and the findings the facts to reach that decision. >> make a motion vice president. >> not particularly i'll make a motion. >> we've already had it, sir. >> a - my motion to uphold the appeal on the basis that the planning department and the erred in their view of this building specifically regarding the

massing of the building, the setback both in terms of the building itself and also the open space and backyard specifically between the property building and the office building directly next door to it and the potential for the development of next door gap site and also their view that this building should be considered the same context as a light building the center core of the downtown. >> that's one really long. >> on this one mr. bryan required a detailed substantive law requires. >> so follow mr. brilliance you know. >> so we could take that as a motion to grant the appeal and

over turn the planning commission motion with the adoption of finding written economic development to take place at another time bans the comments by scomplig commissioner swig. >> on that motion than by commissioner swig and commissioner vice president fung no commissioner lazarus no commissioner president honda. >> commissioner bobbie wilson no so that motion fails no other motion then the planning commission motion will be upheld by motion of law with no other motion made commissioner president honda shall we move on to the next calendared item we'll then call items 8 ab heard together with the appeal on

first filed by the san franciscans for remarkably growth and the other by david osgood against the zoning administrator and has to do with with 75 howard appealing the grant to rfp howard street of exposure and variance to demolishing demolish the parking garage and construct a over story 200 and 80 feet tall. >> i'm sorry can you please keep our comments quiet. >> containing one plus dwelling unit of ground floor retail space and one hundred off-street parking and bicycle parking spaces so we'll start with the appellant for the first case ms. hester. >> i have 7 minutes to present

our case when you're ready to start. >> okay sue hester attorney for san franciscans i would put down a map of the rincon park redevelopment area is coming though how do you do this oh, i'm not very good how do i show an entire page. >> no it is like this and okay

i will do this pardon me i've lost a whole lot of time can i start at 7 that is rincon park that is rincon point this is the gap building this is the old post office and rincon center and part-time that tiny piece is bay side plaza and this is the sites this is the site is part of gap building here it known as gap building project site when i went to the planning commission included this area and this area and this area it didn't include the rincon park but it included the triangle parcel railroad r are

the there will was an eir hearing last day in 13 in the end in 13 and the project took over two year hiatus because a public discussion the last public discussion in the common sense responses and when we commented when i commented we absolutely brought up how to area works and this area works definitely from the way it is portrayed in the eir and the way people think about that they don't have a stake in the building the people at 4 is put in a more honest slaungs this is down the street as you can see clearly how it is

stepping down to the waterfront and so when you look at this - stepping down to the waterfront this is rincon and the building of rincon and the last building we talked about this is the gap building, this is the site right here. >> environmental review have those low rises along the waterfront you clearly see it stepping down but the next page those are in my brief it has how the buildings are looked at from the air and as you can see them pulling back? the gap building this is the gap building right here, this is the gap building tower the tower is right here it is back if this site here this is the largest part of height of the building to the south is

right here this is a little low rise part of gap this is the 20 story building of 200 plus feet to compare this building to this park here is disingenuous to say the least another thing that is even more obvious this photo which i provided in my brief the gap building and how the building was squashed to step down from the waterfront and how they did significant is setbacks on the side this is the plaza this is the gap building, this is the pardon me and when you see the redevelopment agency struggling with the heights along the waterfront they did struggle

they do setbacks and followed the master that was a mandates whether the redevelopments agency when the redevelopment area was created it took along the planning code the general plan at the time at the applied it they at the public hearings the public school discussions the commission discussions at the gap building when i went through the files 80 two weeks ago it is about stepping down and pulling the building back this building has no public discussion no public discussion when you released an eir for a larger site and a higher building and goes to those people from the planning department's and they have some kind of mind compensation so how

are you being responsible if you do take the steps and abandon the plan many say a picture of from the bay bridge of the building that is here this is a dramatic change and inserts this building you've about to see a lot in the week we are a national tv so they'll do those skwoop down shots right now they see a different prospective of city they see what was on this side the gap building is squished there is the light tower no discussion at all when you see the plans they can't parallel 9 planning department botched it all and is that with some

affection for the planning department the redevelopment agency did a much better job they struggled with this and they stepped down to the waterfront and this is not stepped down to the waterfront it is $20 million condo their sell for $20 million really it is unobstructed views of the walls on the water no place like that ever in san francisco housing nun zero than zero than housing nun zero than zero thae >> thank you mrs. osgood >>. osgood >> thank you so there's lee been a lot of

talk on finding i have draft finding on the variance appeal if you want them prepared by an attorney i guess i can't give them to you if you want to see a complete set please ask for them i appreciate that and i got it make a quick comment on the 333 percent more affordable housing which sounds like great a few million dollars old guys like me have impressed when we here $6 million that is something that the city nowadays a couple of strrz no avenue in the neighborhood that is a a shame i want it in my neighborhood ian

advocate nobody knows who is that benefit maybe you're good attorney can comment on those but i doubt this is binding writing and letter and saying something i've heard a lot of developers i served open the cac they make promises from the market goes set they'll say to heck with that 33 percent and is the city going to go over after them i doubt it this came up on market in rincon hill okay. so the city is against this project in your packet you saw a petition signed by 3 hundred and 50 neighbors and concerned community groups like the park and the alliance for better district 6 work, the

central and the harvey milk club and the san francisco tomorrow and the affordable housing alliance some of the letters are in your packets the issue is not about just about aesthetics and the sense will that will dark or memoranda brown the building is bad for the environment and the working class and if not smart planning and the betterment the eir made that clear the issues and shadows on rincon park and the traffic congestion and widens can't be litigated this informs not controversial the developers consultant did an updated shadow analysis and reconfirmed the shadows of rincon park on most days of the year this is from this is building on they make it sound like oh, a lot of big

buildings that considered the salesfroce - let me say again no unsite affordable housing the neighborhood and it is unclear what will be built. >> this project will contribute nothing to middle-income the speaker said he was here about it only does make the gap between the ridge and the lower ends wider nothing in the middle as far as transportation

authority plans & programs committee it is too tall. >> bulky and explicit step down the urban design specifically for the buildings on the waterfront should be although it uses that word there is no you know ifs african-americans and by these this out of sync with the neighborhood i'll show this quick shot somebody from planning said it is perfect for the waterfront it is a copycat building the building on the left is the building that s o m is proposing it falls under fema the same design horizontal box the same vertical lines a third of way do you thing this is insulting to you and to planning it is insulting to the people of the city they get to build on this site

and can't come up with a unique design absolutely outrageous - that is the shot of waterfront every building between the ferry building is historic, low, brick or if it has a tower which is not part of facade they are set way, way back to one hundred and 60 feet yeah. the gap building or the tower not on the waterfront last week this is okay. the rules have been violated the extra height been granted is in violation of the guidelines some of those are

readable guidelines to get that extra 10 percent have to make the building narrow this is what it says it has to contribute to the attractiveness of the top of the building this is not narrow and it certainly didn't have a more attractive top just give away 10 percent some new yorkers do you want burning bulk sure step backs the requirement in 3 phases of the planning guidelines and they're just look at the buildings behind that they're about the same size like dominos zero stepping down

thank you. >> okay. from the variance holder ms. murphy. >> can i verify something that is a matter of two variances that were grand by the commission; is that correct. >> by the zoning administrator. >> by the zoning administrator. >> that is what you're review was confined to in that matter. >> don't believe i've heard those addressed so far. >> thank you, commissioners i'm going to attempt to not say anything we've said a lot of the issues the surveillance that relate to the variance were covered since the setbacks and the dwelling unit i know light came up so if i can have the screen i'll go through this

quickly as i mentioned significant open space into within the site and 75 were to face north or east not requiring the variance at the top of the building 6 of percent those units will face west and south and a 1 setback as much of 23 and in actually open space a minimum of 35 we discussed the develop ability of the adjacent lot by the or less open space it is small the list before you has nothing to do with with bulk and has nothing to do with with the downtown core but with the dwelling unit grocery variance that is granted because of the situation exactly like this the specific subject of the variance today is the width of the

driveway entrance for the building the width felt driveway entrance if a bit of the contradiction it states for to district and others a 27 foot wide shared entrance for loading and parking is permitted then later in section one 4 a maximum of 20 feces feet of the footage of the building in the c-3 can be given to this use we requested did 27 feet for two reasons westbound as dictated to minimum the vehicle conflicts and the amount of curve cuts and wielthd the sidewalk that was a suggestion from planning we agree the combination of that wider sidewalk and the trucks they maintain magnifying public

safety and can't have a 25 foot oovmg if you don't want trucks driving diagonally across the sidewalks the new zone and the rh3 it is permitted in one place and not permitted in another i think out of respect i'll not respond to the urban design unless someone wants me, too. >> thank you for that. >> was there anything more ms. murphy you wanted to - no great we'll hear in mr. sanchez. >> i'll try to be brief and the extensive finding that is granting the two variances that are before you on appeal i think of the variance could have clear and complete that is an appeal

of the variance they're seeking two variances within for enclosure for the dwelling units that don't comply because of the rear yard grant by the planning commission additionally the garage door kwieth and referenced the nuance and historically the garage opening would have been governed by the planning code that allows a entry for parking and loading because their needing to accumulate and allow for a single combined opening of 27 feet so subsequent the last fifth story or longer years the planning code section was created and had a separate set of requirements which in this case imposed a maximize width of 20 feet so the planning code as we rule the planning code the

most restrictive applies we've found the evaporates is justify in order to prevent ingress and egress that is historically loud with without the exception of the variance with previous projects and i didn't hear some of the arguments against on the appeal against the variance i didn't hear many arguments beginnings the variance but our finding are complete one thing the appellants brief is awning argument about where the building front should be on stewart or howard the planning code section clearly gives the property owner the authority the right i guess to make the frontage will be used for meeting the requirements of the planning code thereer specific situations

where the planning commission or administrator may override the block configuration in a different configuration but as proposed it make sense to me i mean actually wonder why the appellant is raising that that the footage requirement saying the 40 feet rear yard should be located doesn't make sense again i'm available to answer any questions. >> go ahead. >> please. >> i seek the variance holders documents and the project architect references it seems to me that the variance granted for the enclosure is so common variance with those types of. >> absolutely the nearest example on one hundred van ness i believe there maybe been on the new construction on the lot

next door you've heard as well. >> but i think i want to hear. >> yeah. but not to diminish the importance of the exposure we achieved the light and air for the unit not creating units that won't be habitable. >> what happens the floor plate if no variance for exposure. >> no variance they'll have to reconfigure the units so none face that area or have a code compliant rear yard so to review that. >> and also a number of units as well. >> yeah. do you want -

>> separately we will reduce the units count by thirty units from the variance were not granted and the result of this will simply be fewer larger units this is not in anyone's interest in in this case >> we'll packing take public comment how many people plan to speak on this item. >> okay. we'll give everyone 2 minutes given the hour and the number of people whoever wants to speak fill out a speaker card when you come up to speak that would be helpful and stands on the far side of room if you're able in a line that helps to move the process quickly. >> good afternoon, tim on behalf of the action coalition our mission to trying to grapple with the affordable housing

we've reviewed this project over 5 years and the project that's before you was dpooeven reviewed by the members now by me but emphasis about the design how to responds to the waterfront in fact, some of the members from very well known firms it could be higher it blends in two well, it conforms to the decision of the waterfront on the question of the shades we have a good chuckle the analyze it casts as much shadow as the cupping i did boo and arrow on the issue the planning department role and how they done it i want to say that to us they've been impartial and thorough and a very good going back job in saluting this project fairly and the analysis that they've provided nor if

project was the one get a 6 to nothing vote on the planning commission eir and 11 to nothing at the board of supervisors and finally on the - i take exception to this question this $16 million fee that is paid to the mayor's office of housing is underhanded or something envelope i couldn't say the mayor's office of housing is chronically underfunded has a list of projects they can't take of the lack of funding the city is underway to increase the definition of income eligibility to include the middle-class. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm with the

richmond's association and with the san francisco neighborhoods i want to read this statement the surveillance are it be granted a hardship will occur and that it will be denied the benefits that the properties in the neighborhoods are or vicinity have been granted. >> and they'll not violate other general plan or planning code provisions or harm other property owners this variance fails in every step of the categories the permit holders of the numerous construction in a rear yard design who skylines can be easily modified to eliminate those exemptions thus, the need

have sole a result the thoughts permit holder for their benefits they put it on themselves if they had a proper design not coming here and ask for vaurnsz and exceptions. >> the overhead please this is a drawings of the 75 howard street and the address is 75 howard street yet the entrance on stewart street so if the entrance were on howard street as 75 howard excuse me. since the interest on third street the rear yard should be directly behind they have to put on the side rear yard didn't

have to ask for the exception please not grant it thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm glen rogers a landscaper architect anguish the shadow and the amount of shadow is not an opinion but science when people say the amount of shadow cast by a statute a bow and arrow status is as much as with your getting from this building you know we know that all of that is just nothing but hyperbole when it comes to the construction of this building this building will provide heirs only for the weightiest in san francisco without affordable housing on

site these these condominiums will cost as much as 5 to $50 million each real estate if this real estate this expensive is over represented in san francisco therefore this project will not satisfy a housing need here this will be one thing to have 33 percent of the condominiums in this project being affordable housing but as it is now the people that will be there and there's been articles the new york times about this the people that will be here are like the people in new york or in paris and these people some of them are russian and move i can't and wealthy chinese that affords $20 million that type of housing is not the

type of housing that is affordable housing so if you're going to have someone buy it front for $20 million their especially rich how can you say that takes care of of affordable housing i don't understand that thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> excuse me. >> good evening, commissioners president i live here the city of san francisco i work over there by day and francisco and montgomery i work walk from the gym at fulsome from the fitness i walk by this constantly oriental or on the walks say rincon park is a state owned land park a sculpt park during the summit students

25 degree and no trees around that structure this particular park needs nor shade not less reviewed by the city staff the stakeholders and commissioners and thousands of visits on 75 howard complies with the sections (calling names) and so the granting to rfp howard is appropriate just with the we weigh in from stakeholders and communities organizations the planning commission didn't act in a capricious fashion they voted 5 to one in port of project 75 howard added quality of life in the neighborhood on a dead block it enhances the culture heritage that is a parking garage facing xhaefshg it preserves the bay and casts a

.7 shadow into the park that is treeless during the hottest days of the summer and this - excluding a daycare center the neighborhood and contribute $4 million in property taxes and from the wealthiest living in the flaib buildings please reject the appeals. >> would you care to state your name. >> donald i submitted a speaker card too. >> great. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is rochelle when i'm representing the bay area council in august the council of housing committee endorsed 75

howard and we're here toe reiterate today why that is so the 75 howard street proposal will create one and 33 new market rate housing and 33 percent in lieu of of fees go so affordable housing it replaces an underutilized parking space near public transportation in a time when san francisco is the poster child for the regions housing crisis we should be approving more housing to alleviate not further limiting the supply the planning commission votes 4 to one and the board of supervisors unanimously voted to support this project it is difficult to understand such a delay in a time we desperately need housing built. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is tolling rodriguez i represent local 43 and represent myself i'm a native and residents of san francisco want to approve that for jobs for construction workers and many who will be part of loophole workforce jobs for state approved hens learning a trade you've heard all that this project provides one and 33 new market-rate housing 33 percent affordable housing and it is a time of housing crisis in san francisco also the project provides a large amount of tax revenue the project was passed the internal revenue and the planning commission go passed and the

board of supervisors along the supervisors of the district so once again asking you to approve the project thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> commissioners michael construction and building trade council as you've marked the testimony by the appellants on this particular appeal was a rehash of the items you've decided on the earlier appeal this is perhaps because the items left in the appeal exposure the units and the variance on the curve cuts are wider than at all and minor and less likely to trigger the capriciousness we saw the testimony on the variances one thing i'll remark is that on the question of collection of the affordable housing in lieu of

fee that is normally done at the time i understand when a permit is pulled and the city perspective to look at the fee. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners joel here as a san franciscan i'm here representing the electrical workers r06 your brothers and sisters on the labor side in a full support of this and our thirty contractors multi generational pay their payrolls are in favor of the project i was at the planning commission hearing planning is in favor of the project i want are went to the board of supervisors they're in favor of the project jane kim

is in favor the probation officer project we think this is a necessary and desirable project to replace this parking lot and urge you to deny the appeal thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is eddy with the sheet local 104 we support this project and feel that is a good project we also building the planning department did a thorough analysis professional analysis on the eir and so you know alleging with the planning commission conclusion in meet the task for over turning their decision the board should consider as a speakers before me said the report yes, it is good middle-income construction with

protecting and other career packets for the city's youth through our heinecke those are real tackle community benefits this project will deliver we ask you to deny this appeal thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners be my name is madison a business represent for the city and county of san francisco i'm here tonight to speak in supports of this project and excited by the project and the years of work and design gone into replacing an obsolete parking structure and the available shock is needed and excited about the array of benefits for 4 affordable units in fees and funds for the city and an unanimous tax revenue stream and

latest on behalf of my members i urge you to move forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, good evening. i'm margaret wallis a resident of the howard street area it is funny any building manager told first of all, it is laughable the claims of the affordable housing will truly, provided my building manager said they have one apply for the low income units $46,000 is not a year but a month the landlord had the wherewith all those units will not be made available to the residents and the mayor's office did an impact the construction around labor trafficking i don't doubt the 75 howard street will

included additional jobs in difference between labor traveling and the destruction of the waterfront have been take into account the variances, of course, only necessary because the developers themselves have pit themselves literally quote in a box a boxy building not conform to the space a square peg i've been a residence of san francisco since 1975 i vote and the neighborhoods everyday i see the impact of this that happens the city the waterfront the free was once there but what brought it down an earthquake will it take an earthquake it feeds needs to go backward and forward e back to the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with ms.

e back to the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mcke back to the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with ms. back to the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with ms. back to the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mndo the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mfo the drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with more drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mrw drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mwa drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mar drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with mrd drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with md drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with m e drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with ms. drawing board. >> rebuttal starting with m bg board. >> rebuttal starting with ms. board. >> rebuttal starting with ms. hester. >> don't start until i start >> i did notice you wait until i was ready to start the thing not me. >> yeah. >> sue hester's i know the stepping down to the waterfront is this picture the developer elected the fund of the building and elected to use this part with the derivative when this part over here is a froover her

- it's difficult not to wonder into thirty 9 is designed as a whole and choose the areas things to get it benefits of on the list but it is all about the unified buildings because of the design issues the thing if bothers the hell out of me is that no one from the planning department ever bothered to read the files that was openly pine the general plan with the redevelopment agency did that job we had real

concerns about the sculpting of the tower as you can see that is really pushed back and there is height and i understand the sculpting but how they staged the building on the gap the board of supervisors never approved the project they only have an environmental review and so one finds things you have to show is that the design calls for side dwelling unit exposure and all the examples are not one example anywhere on the waft all the design the emperor variance the middle of the city we have a plan that says there's specific designs in the general plan and the planning department can't be bothered they looked at

the planning code they don't q with the general plan i have a large controversy over that but this one it comes through the planning department needs to learn there are other people massing along the waterfront and the redevelopment and what did the redevelopment agency do they were extremely concerned about the park and also i have this included the park files they were very concerned about the shadows on students park and part of redevelopment files they were concerned about the gap building setbacks and it is part of files but the planning department didn't thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. osgood.

>> thank you i still wish with someone would take me on the the offer to review our draft finding okay. a couple of things surveillance what is really disturbing the continuing argument that the permit holder makes they do this all the time they have things all the time i can compare to the john dillinger he robbed the bank but does it all the time they keep on saying that this list of buildings they provide where the rear yard exception was granted just happens tobacco up there this is not that big of a list considering all the massive

construction i'm sure you'll agree considering the buildings there is if you think that is a long impressive less it is a indict for planning. giving away the store a couple of speakers comments and jane kim she's my superintendant i've met with her and no evidence she supports this project her staff member danny said she opposes it she opposes because of the shadows on rincon park and the other problem she voted for the eir but that is different not supports for the project labor any friends in labor we have to be the closet to foil employment we've ever been since world war ii once upon a time,

you is to say 99 percent of the projects is enough there is still some that can't go through i mean what kind of city approves everything rubber stamps everything they call it b.a. luxury i'm sure the planning commission and b.commia hardship of the not have they're making will occur not the case they decided where to put the garage entrance it is their problem it should be on the side streets how many building on market street have a garage

think market their on the side street or the alley >> thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. murphy i think i have 6 minutes. >> yes. >> i'll try not to take 6 good evening ms. murphy i wanted to brief focus on the issues properly before you on other discusses and focus on the variances and i do want to remind just recall what he was referring to and mr. sanchez about the site this sites as mentioned the whole configuration of the lot was a kwunls of embarcadero free we tried to show an image by and regularly shaped lots a lot of those relatively complicated set of open space and garages it is

a circumstance that is out of older but in variances are really intended to have the thoughtful sculpting the reason the planning code permit that a notion that the enforcement of symprovisions cause unnecessary hardship taken for example, the oscar pistorius we've heard here tonight part of the reason. the evaporates of the oscar pistorius a contradiction in the code 4 a specifically says in c-3 you'll say a 27 feet opening and because we're trying to have one curve cut it creates the hardship of the difficulty of trying to get the trucks in at that radius in is what section

thirty 5 contemplates as mentioned the code is compliant the newer district to updated the consideration wouldn't have a variance but in section 345 the parking and loading on the 4 and section one 40 on the dwelling unit exposure we added a few more the c-3 we in recent years and deems i think a couple of things first of all, that under these circumstances the project does provide adequate light and air for the enforcement that's the expect as seen from the images there is a lot of clarence provided by the

project with the 15 foot setback and at please come forward and 23 feet that lists the setbacks and the distanced between the buildings and the open space is is really would be an unnecessary hardship an urban liken not accurate light and air but i think this the thirty 5 findings that are the variance very a thorough goes through all sections of c-3, within through 45 is a thoughtful i can't tare why their grants part of purpose you know the variances are interestingly on one hand you can't have something different from the code it has to code compliant by preserving the

rights to use the property rights of the same district we talk about it being grant but actual within the things no section thirty 4 we provided you that information tonight i think the records speaks for itself flanz can speak but the variances radio properly grand and the evidence supports them and the record is thorough i'll respectfully request that this board uphold the direction of zoning administrator in granting and please deny this appeal and uphold the appeal of the zoning administrator thank you very much >> i have a question so counselor a lot of the public regarding the three 3 and one thirds percent when is that participation given. >> we've sent the letter

do you want to speak to it. >> yeah. mark the thinking outside the box will speak. >> we will pay the in lieu of fee once we pull our permits to begin construction. >> so once our shovel ready you'll do that. >> thank you for your clarification. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i think the variances have been thoroughly briefed to hit own two points the alternative variances granted as you've heard per unit and fewer impact fees for the affordable housing and the garage entry maybe a misunderstanding not the location it is width of it so actually under the planning code they having could have a 20 foot

opening on the frontages and have two omss a total of 40 feet not a great design for one narrower opening which we reviewed and found it not going to be safe request ingress and egress not heard arguments a lot about the design review process so like to address some of the issues that were raised about the review of this project thank you. >> good evening jeff director of current planning san francisco planning department i've heard testimony both tonight and at the previous hearing expressed concerns about the quality, the sort of what was preserved by some to be a typical or not documented view

on the department i tends to to agree whorled with those who testified of the completeness and the quality over the course of the project the the review the project has been i would say particularly detailed given the specific interest in waterfront development in terms of other projects and also an i think mansion the general plan was not fully added considered it is our role to be

t steward of the overall quality and the aspect we focus on quite a bit of the roll and responsibility of such projects to the river and stepping down to the waterfront or to the bay. >> what's been most a typical the amount of attention and the design iterations and design it is not incorrect that is not been specifically documented in detail it is not a typical of those projects much of the design negotiation and navigation happens through discussions or around tables with the trades paper and specific discussions what is necessary to result in a project

that conforms to the goals and exception this project went through a large number of rearbitrations over the course of that conversation were we are both we the planning department and ultimately the planning commission have felt positively about the contribute of the project it is as david winning slow stated a project of its time not looking exactly like it reflects some of the material qualities of some of it's neighbors because those neighbors were constructed and designed in a very different moment we consider it it a sophisticated and thoughtful and detailed one we're glad they're able to see a more accurate recommendation felt material and

other qualities that were again, very specifically evolved and negotiated over the course of that design process i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> about that process. >> i have within question. >> yeah. >> in regards to the enforcement itself does this project have an exception for trees or parking. >> there's not an exception for trees or the parking but a conditional use authorization for parking. >> okay. >> and that krifks is required if the i believe in general in the ratio .5 to one is principally permit and permit

holder is seeking 3. >> no tree exception but trees offsite is there a reason why i believe i saw that the brief. >> oh, sorry. >> so the requirements of the code is trees in a certain distance around the perimeter and portion for example, because of the driveway where the block is facing like and pg&e valet we can't do a tree maybe a few trees. >> i believe the page said 5. >> so 5 trees, however, the streetscape is to conform with the better plan design. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm prepared to jump in. >> police department do. >> this was a question of two

variances for this project one of them i consider completely minor the curb cut that is actually beneficial the other has to do with with the emperor and again, i'm per swatsdz by the numbers of example and that's been applied and further from the nothing 23r9s patent doubt appellant and i believe the finding have been met. >> i will repeat myself you know, in general i don't support exceptions and variances there is only one reason why i voted positively for this project and i still think that whether the department wants to say that others have that and

developers want to say others got the extension i don't think they're right exception are meant to be limited and we'll have this disagreement i've said it a number of times i said it and market and tenth you know this is a difference of opinion but i did vote for to particular project with only one reason i'll continue to do that in this case. >> and i agree with commissioner lazarus the curve cut variances is minor and didn't really matter i also agree with commissioner vice president fung because the other guy got it as an exception didn't mean the exception becomes the rule i'd like to see this project get done but not in

this form i believe this project is a series of self-justifications planning commission justifications, compromises that result in justification and the variance of the rear yard variance is just another compromised and justification which, in fact, from the building were properly designed from the setbacks were proper the whole thing just wrecks of compromise and little adjustments so justifies the project and the rear yard i think i take exception again inform certainty next door that the gap or someone else will not build on the project a tight

area between the i've gotten confused which is the back but the spear street side that building is very, very tight of so i have a problem with the variance that is problematic of the entire project i'd like to see the project get built and love to see the materially respect the trade he represents we knows that from mire redevelopments days and love to see the workers get job sea a 33 and one thirds contribution to housing but i feel very strongly about compromising values for the sake of getting building built and this variance rear yard variance which i oppose is

emblemat emblematic. >> i move to uphold the appeal and granted the surveillance and the requirements being met. >> the planning code and commissioner lazarus we should also consider environmental finding in this matter is where he distributed some draft environmental findings if we could put those on the overhead if their acceptable we'll include those. >> i move to include the environmental findings. >> okay. so we have a motion in

commissioner lazarus to deny the two appeals and uphold the variances they met the planning code with the exception of the environmental finding on the overhead right now commissioner vice president fung commissioner president honda no commissioner wilson no commissioner swig no okay. that motion fails on a vote 2 to 3 is there any other motion if not these variances will be upheld by default. >> okay seeing no other motion you want me to call the next item. >> do you mind we'llthen. >> okay. we're resuming the

wednesday, january 27, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals and we'll calling item 9 jack oswald and susan and others versus the planning department with the building approval protesting the owners on october 2015 to bruno of an altercation permit with a remodel and we'll wait for commisssioner bermejo to return and once he does we'll hear the appellant. >> i would last week to spend our appreciation.

>> mr. patterson. >> thank you. good evening commissioner honda's and commissioners ryan patterson on behalf of (calling names) commissioners as you may know the law sets out two different types of building permits there are remodel permits renovation and demolition new construction permits this is the case that an owner and architect misrepresenting the demolition as a remodel good evening and thank you very much for being here to late together with my husband jack we're the owners of 310 green

street adjacent to the project we are polling tonight because that seriously impacts our home by blocking light to our solar panels the afternoon when when they're most valuable a dilation from our go solar experts is on the overhead will be in a minute and i can see his report as exhibit d the project that far go big four stories with 100 percent lot coverage because a roof deck we're joined in this pill by tom and barb of adjacent of the open space the project as a right the project will cast a shadow across our home limiting our solar access at equality of

greens the 6 appellants are james and susan of green street they write quote despite the permit holders statements all the in addition true neighbors opposite this with the exception of one letter that where a wrote a qualified letter of support naemg with the protection of some of his viewers the proposed house will be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood blocking light to the gardens including us, please deny this year an unlawful demolition i ask a you respectfully it will block our solar system and improperly permitted as a remodel when, in fact, is a

demolition thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> good evening my name is a dean a designer and i'll also a consultant for patrick o'neill unfortunately is not here at the moment identify been authorized to speak on his behalf for project neil construction is a contractor who specialize in high designs in san francisco we have reviewed this project and the permit project for this we don't believe this project can be built without having demolished the entire building the floor and the roof will silver have to be reframed and the exterior walls need to be

reframed and more details is actually on mr. o'neill's declaration and on his declaration can you put that up oh, there it is were that that we don't all the factors are here and address the commission up to three minutes. will continue. >> i'm a civil engineer i've reviewed the sites and the complete history including the original permit to build and the 3-r report this will show the if i may is not adequate from 2 stories to 4 with a roof deck 5 with the quarantined of 12 inches above the soil the weight on the building from 2 to had is not going to work the promoted

project is going take a 2 story building and make it had the plans were reviewed by an competent argument get architect if they shown the, is grossly i think adequate it as 2 by 8 spanning 9 feet and taking out long joint they don't work the studs are 3 by 4 effectively a 5 story building you need of inch studs on the framing that was presented to the city the walls to remain and the floor joined they don't work they'll all have to be replaced with new framing what we call they're saying that

remains as part of calculation if you account the section which the building inspection relied on to remain with 3 by 8 is so substandard is it so unableable the 3-r report no structure draurlgz that will you upgrade this building all that is under 2 by 4 and net with what tare doing they'll ends up with a 5 story building with 12 niches of soil the framing will have to be replaced do at a time date the plan needs to be reviewed by dbi and a request that dbi structural engineer go out to the site to verify i'm correct. >> i'd like to briefly touch

on a couple of issues i'm about out of time but the defects i'll encourage the expirations to look at the brief and we'll have time to touch on that in rebuttal. >> thank you. we'll hear in the permit holders. >> good evening, commissioners and thank you for hearing us this evening. >> i want to start when we are sparking the appellants we'll be speaking of mr. oswald and others that are our neighbors to the east on 310 green street the couple that has taken us through

the appeals to date that's been a long process if i could have the overhead please this matrix shows the claims over the past 2 and a half years and against all the appeals that the appellant courts looking at this when we met with the appellants back in 2013 their issue was the view from the roof deck and assess of light to their solar panels we took those issues seriously and made changes to the project that those areas removing a penthouse parapet and reducing the third story we did this in a concerted effort to address the solar

access by they're on report show the adequate light throughout most of day not getting shade until the end of the day all ass issues were looking forward by the planning department but the planning commission unanimously voted for our project after listening to the issues the board of supervisors look at the ceqa exception and unanimously voted for the project and the board of appeals we were here, of course, for the variance you support us and most recently we were in front of the supreme court sorry the superior court for two days of hearing and unanimously well the judge support our project and so i think really what it get to the issue of demolition now perhaps the prominent

initial in their appeal first of all, i want to say that we're talking about site permanently permit graurgz that don't have the details and submitted to the department by a full review the inspectors there. >> this project is not a demolition on the overhead as you can see those few short wall see baitdz and a couple of walls around the penthouse are going to be removed the rest of the walls will remain all the vertical lemons will be strengthened a typical building practice in the city otherwise none would be doing work in san francisco with all those old

homes the appellants attorney bring the sf building code section that section is intended for demolition without a permit and not properly used and 0 goes to be 0 issues of the application on how it was filled the overhead please and starting with things like the construction type of we've noted the construction i type 5 i'll state sections type 5 construction is that type of construction in which the exterior and walls with permitted by this code this is defined the construction type we used that and other things they talked about the general contractor we put to be determined how can you expect to have a contractor wait around

for 3 years so at the appropriate time we put them out to bid this is typical practice the city other issues the altercation create a deck the attorney of the appellants left out the critical words that says horizontal extension to the building we don't have decks horizontal those are the types of things they've come to and trying to prevent us from expanding our home a small lot only 18 and a half feet by b 7 feet deep we're proposing a approximately 3 thousand grow square feet building the appellants is 4 thousand gross so we've doing everything we can other things

one way to be constructed no intelligence to do this we'll submit the appropriate documented to dpw and do what they request for sign off the other things the existing storage room in the basement level yes, a storage room and dark down there this is at all it is and it is a permit that shows the previous owners applied for a permit f that dealt laundry and storage room the basement schematic separation another thing the brief designed during construction documents will be submitted for full review and in the case the seismic but terms of the building to be rigid

we'll design for that achapter four no less conforming than the building prior to the altercation also sf building code states that the building separation of section c e plus do not apply those are things i've discussed with senior officials at the department and please recognize this project is looked at bill a lot of people thank you. >> thank you. >> one question is there a roof deck i did not see that the drawings. >> theres a roof deck he shouldn't to show you on the site plan here the overhead please so here's our property right here we're proposing a green roof the front

it act as buffer to the even larger roof deck owned by the neighbors that was really what after all this is about their view from roof deck that's why they're upset we've made concessions. >> the rest is a deck and this portion is a deck. >> okay. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department it is a late night i'll try to be brief this project has been around for the environmental review was filed and the permit was submitted at the end of noah valley of 2012 it underwent the review by the

residential design team it was heard at the end of october of 2014 and unanimously upheld by the commission at that time, a variance associated that was substantial grand an appeal filed on the environmental review heard by the board of supervisors at the beginning of 2015 and that appeal was denied then the appeal of the variance was heard by you about a year ago that appeal was denied then they. >> remember the vote? >> i think the one commissioners that expressed concerns someone that is noted for having concerns about variances we'll go nameless and subsequent they filed a petition for a mandated on the boards decision

on the variance that went to be superior court i was informed the boards decision was upheld the judge denied the filing the petition of theirs and so, now before you with the project itself so the building permit that authorizes the project that has been the subject of this lead and the appeal brief we have bond detailed technical list of reasons to deny one of them is the planning related but completely wrong sited it is a demolition under pier 39 not their remaining that to not trigger the requirements under 317 and contemplating the occasion and inspector duffy pulling the wrong invention out

of the demolition issues from building code but they're trying to say this is a demolition based on the plans it is not a demolition that is the only planning code issue maybe i can go home but at the end there's not a demolition the planning code we've been before you on numerous times other concerns about people coming close to this limit on demolition in section 317 that is not 10 percent he understand the issues rays by the appellant section 317 is not underlying concerns to be affordable housing i think for with it is a unit

being 57 and a half feet deep the project meets the urban design and we respectfully request you deny the appeal and uphold the project thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit as many of you may know the prescription is in the second story the remodel of the third and fourth story it is a site permit we have at addendum to go through so there were issues brought up i actually met within an architect of the building inspection sometimes before the

hearings we do this and there are a few things i agree with the appellants to some degree on the permit application we've got some information that not probably described properly on the application and i have spoken with sill you can't have who manages the plan check division we have a process to amend and correction that going forward type of construction if this needs to be changed to type 5 and then that can be done there's the question about the deck the horizontal edition i believe it is saying the deck i always that didn't employ to a roof deck it is the horizontal edition question we should fin that going forward we see a lot

of residential design it was set up before a lot of roof deck didn't should say it doesn't include the roof deck one and the same so the demolition without a permit some talk of that again, i see the point and the appellants when they bring it up on the definitions i noticed in the brief i want to use the overhead the san francisco building code we have a section so this is demolition without a permit that is if someone just exceeds the beyond the scope ask of demolition and tears the building down without a building permits for the purposes of this section the following definitions will apply and on the page 12 of the code you see the demolition

definition and principle portion so those definitions only apply to unlawful demolition i don't think they apply in this case we see those types of projects all the time and see them in altercation not on demolition and then new construction they're done on a 10 form you know and as long as planning we go with section 317 the demolition shown and the problem people get into if they take down too much this gets them into trouble this is an issue they need to be aware have to remain and keep within that but definitely we're not looking at this as a fuel demolitions on new construction the other issue the rigid - the

design of the building in regards to the seismically drift i spoke with tom i believe that the project sponsor have a letter from a structural engineer that needs to looked during plan review during the addendum and doing the movement gives me a quick class needs to be addressed adrc sheer wall so the this didn't move and maybe the gentleman can teach me but something that needs to be incorporated into the design additional i believe that the design will allow for that with that, not sure if they brought up too much else anyone has any

questions. >> so all the items the gentleman brought all the things if you were a construction insert i am not i get his drift that will be all be caught that is not the issue and that will be caught in the addendum process the confirmation everything is up to code with the seismically, etc. >> i think that i think that they still have to go though the structural review no reviews like this and there are ways to design it i. going by past experience and we do agree with

them if no where to design it 2 by for us and replaced with 2 by 6s they've over the scope of the demolition we will kick that back to planning and that might change things but i'm not hearing from the project sponsor a design in mind that will support this building. >> without - with those walls remaining. >> so what could happen if he find that the definition of the scope and how it is described tonight that question deny the appeal this project could come back because, in fact, the concept was great a approved by the reality of building that concept

will change the scope and have to be repermited new. >> i'll refer to mr. sanchez that as planning and 317 might kick in this that were the case it could be the revision on the addendum but not another opportunity for another appeal mr. sanchez comment if you don't mind. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department through the addenda process the department found they feet to rove more walls than on the plans if within the 317 threshold and couldn't be a demo we'll rectify that under the addendum about triggers the 317 requirement we'll have them file and upon if that taco take that to the planning department and have its

own appeal process. >> are we given the scope premature and wasting time if we approved that and engineering studies were not right and beams and another other things we're tricked additional back to no where. >> this is the reality of planning department section 317 and the sited process and certainly in this the process those issues have been covered or you know the site permit passed the mustard and they finds things not anticipated that happens then i'm sure the project will be closely watched if they roach more than their authorized we'll have them file and revision. >> are we uncomfortable should

we be uncomfortable that there hadn't been finally engineering and i'll look at commissioner vice president fung he's the architect but uncomfortable that we don't have enough information here based on the engineering studies and the finality felt building plans and a relatively high or moderate potential you been should we be uncomfortable. >> thought the process that allows someone to get the architecture approval and the planning and do the structural calculations after they've been to the risk of entitlement process think again uncomfortable with the section

317 that doesn't match reality in the issue you can't build 2 stories on top of the structure but increasing more than one story we need something to routing plan for the hundreds of thousands of permit we deal with every year to i mean this is the best process we have with the current code. >> so this is as much as an entitlement process and the final determination will be determined whether the building permit is appropriate. >> so i guess my question would be what is the deficiency obviously they don't need all the information you cited a couple of things perhaps to be changed on the permit. >> on the permit application and and aside in your opinion i

guess the zoning administrator opinion the permit application is sufficient yeah. i would add a capture of things i'd like to hear from the design team of the profoundly and maybe something from an engineer but i've seen those promotions have been done before they have to be careful and sometimes the structural and the earth don't jell it needs to jell on this one that is one thing and again, we'll have the site permit so we have seen them this is doable but they have to incorporate the design so don't go over the demolition and get themselves into a different scenario. >> we've seen further appeals too. >> that's okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you

to we move to take public comment can i see a show of hands we'll allow for two minutes the first person please step forward please fill out a speaker card and also, if you wouldn't mind stance in a line on the far side of the room that helps. >> somebody want to go first come to the microphone. >> small business step up don't be shy. >> anyone want to speak. >> sir go ahead we need someone to start. >> my name is arne an

architect practicing in san francisco for 33 years an unpaid concerned professional that has been familiar with this project i met with joe to try to understand the code issues the thing i want to say about the structural this is a site permit and that this is a remodel of american people existing building and empowering as well as two by 4 or whatever they were there be reinforced the only issue i wanted to talk about bruno didn't mention all the walls needs to be one am and if you're working on a property line wall and one hour wall you'll have to dpeesh every building in san francisco the

policy has been well, first two layers of supports on the inside and now a one layer 5, 8 inch and i'll found that in projects the assertion to tear the building down is another misleading statement and quickly that is a site permit about planning issues the architect and he's a very good architect will have the structural engineer provide the amount of the riders calculations and to show this this will stand i think the substance of this is based on misrepresenting and see through those tactics and reject this appeal. >> thank you next person. >> please step forward. >> my name is joel a friend of

brand new notices and susan i've known them for 25 years and i'm an architect they couldn't be a kinder process this process is sad i've done experience with the historic structures and residential structures and commercial when i remodeled in san francisco i'd like to address do demolition and touch on the solar issue my previous condemn the demolition a red herring and we typically under postpone and try tee save as much of the structure as we can a sustainable way to build common and also going back not uncommon if this approach calling this house a demolition was said, yes this house is being demolished

it sets a proponent to create a flood of demolition applications this question of the definition of that as the zoning administrator was saying is a big one that is not that case not a occasion. real quickly on the solar issue i've been through the appellants previous report it is i think complete didn't make satellites no methodologies we've also looked it by another well known and published installer and educator that came to the same communication the over shadowing if our documents is wrong and the way we measure energy by kilowatt per square meter quickly they've commented on how - >> ten seconds. >> sure.

>> how the permit the shadowing will wipeout the array that is made with kilowatt. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is peter an architect in san francisco i've known bruno for 35 years and practiced in san francisco i've done hundreds of residential projects in san francisco similar to this one never filed for a demolition permit not required everyone is familiar with 317 b and this is it is a demolition if so this as standard remodeling in san francisco we've been here several times fourth commission been to court and i've been to mediation he

meetings at the met at the courthouse and 8 or 9 people show up with a mediation and jack didn't show up he's not been here at other meeting and not permanent neighbors they're not live next door not a neighbor's that's why they punish this issue they were actually living there with a family trying to move into their house yeah again, this structural system is this is common you don't so tear down everything bruno as a licensed engineer part of his responsibility to meet the code as the engineers in san francisco are doing this similar thing time. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi good evening

you'll be happy to know i'm not an architect i own a business in north beach in san francisco and been a community family center so i've known bruno and susan two years ever sense they were pregnant and came in to the community and again, i say in simple ways i don't dough their honest and indirectly watched them subcontract with the fellow community and how much they're involved in the families in north beach and i'm speaking to contribute socially i'd like really, really like to see them live the neighborhood it is sad how many families are not able to live the neighborhood so they are basically chase outs for

different reasons but please i would like you to listen to everything that's being said and look at it them to go ahead and bring their family their daughter up to the grandparents to live together in bondage. >> ondage. >> ndage. >> . >> s. >> f. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening i've been a friend i have bruno back the college we were roommates and work for an architect in north beach i want to attach quit claim obtain some of the permit proclamations issues i felt that the best way of defending how they did it to defend how the appellants filed out their application if i can start with

this one we're looking at a permit for the building at 310 green street light states with the contractor unknown in the right direction the other appellant not here tonight the same thing green street contractor unknown and that's not unusual just to defend them a lot of times hurry or your short for contractor and try to get the bids together and another one 3 temple green street this is the construction 5 says that's the type of construction not fire rating in the case it the unusual that permit was to expand the dining room and the canter's permitted

window permanent showing the plan a legally permitted window if you looked at the odds of the wall we see open framing kind of hard it is dark but it is been derelict construction i'm not sure what kind of a fire rating probably not a good one and the other appellant not here when they filed this tout out added a fourth floor and a roof deck if you put a guardrail around it you're not defending it. >> good evening. i'm ronan architect i've lived and practiced in the city forever 18 years i've been watching the

events over the last 3 years as i said, i practiced in the city and seen those projects i've never seen this let's be clear we're talking about oswald is not waging against the appellant you guys got our decision wrong that is what he's saying and furthermore saying i don't like your zoning laws change those two there is a time and place i've heard about the constructive reviews and some of the constructive ability reviews laughable we can't preserve this type of structure it didn't match today's standards so if you think that this guy premise

didn't hold water navigates over the past 3 years i've not seen anything that produces one item that is for consideration in fact at the appeals hearing and the supreme court of san francisco said we reject everything this man said and all the decisions i suspect this will be no different today you should have uphold your previous decision and loud these people to build and live in peace i'll leave this here for your consideration i've filed that out. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is nicholas a

contractor licenses the statistic i have 25 years construction projects with concrete steel and wood i have had an opportunity to look at the declarations by the gentlemen and i find their grossly misrepresent active their convolute several types of construction and deceptive and misleading in reviewing the construction document i agree with the current proposed scope of demolition and i've had an opportunity to speak about an engineer that was engaged by the canter's to be their engineer i have a letter if the gentleman i think we've been looking for that i'd like to read for him

typed at the canter's request i've reviewed did declarations of patrick and patrick o'neill dated january 7, 2016, and performed a structural analysis of the property and reviewed the sites documents and first-hand knowledge of the design and detailing the vast majority of existing framing will remain intact to accumulate the promoted construction with proper reenforcement i've looked at the floor plans and exhibit 1 of the canter's response and find it accurately represents the demolition it has the seismically separation as the san francisco planning department and the proposed foundation 90 to not expose or undermine the foundation of the

property and the details cited will be knitted in an addendum to the san francisco department of building inspection for review as general contractor i see those projects all the time on a daily basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi my name is bridget i'm before me notice sister a couple of things to say i want to say bruno and susan are really wanting to work with everybody and the community and certainly, of course, their neighbors the appellants they've made amuse accommodations to address the concern around their roof decks and, yes frankly not anything that enough that's why we see

appeal after appeal of the project that bruno and susan has put forth and the delays with putting stress on the having to come back and rerepresent their case has been quite hard and holding up our parents are frankly going to be staying there they need center assistance i want to say they've gotten extensive part you've heard from the people the community i have a list of 40 plus people and neighbors and so forth i ask you allow them to move forward and stop the continual delay. >> is there any additional public comment? >> on this item seeing over rebuttal mr. patterson.

>> thank you, commissioners ryan ryan patterson for the appellants i don't doubt the canter's are fine people i object to their families and paid consultants with the public comment i ask the testimony to be stricken the record this appeal is about the structural issue we have a structural engineer that has testified and the fact it dbi has not had a h their structural engineer review those plans you're seeing a problem with the progress i ask you to look at the what the representatives said those permits this permit has problems they're saying don't worry that is not proper we have to say we're a city that

followed the allows lacey ever don't worry about that's close enough that is another remodel project 23 to 25 clifford terrace permitted in the same thing two unit home here during construction almost entirely disappeared here's a closer photo this is what they're talking about when we say don't worry the walls will be reinforced they've taken scrap lumber and attached it to the walls the walls don't exist their additionally so many misrepresentations that came out of the permit holder recusal omitted on the questions on the building permit are tree adding a driveway in essence their

alternating the driveway they'll have to alternate the driveway the list is extensive and i fear the desire of a lot of people to just permit things and don't look at the requirement and the packet the existing studs the walls doesn't meet code and can't be used to hold up a 4 story building service request here i don't think this has enough information dbi didn't have enough information i'll ask a senior inspector to look at this this board can either get information or revoke the permit it is clearly issued no error or

not installing a fourth floor oar the roof deck they say no roof deck is created and i would encourage you to look at the language on the application form it is quite clear thank you for your time. >> mr. patterson i have a couple of questions he was here during the first case last year someone from the public showed pictures what is the reading of our clients and open stud condition. >> the questions what fire rating is required i don't know what the trend extensive construction is going on i don't know what the fire rating is. >> open stud no sheetrock or 5, 8th's it is fire rating. >> i understand rock on the outside and the inside there is a recent interpretation to not do that.

>> i did not see that the picture is there something on the property. >> i think the wails with open to some stent still under construction not sealed off with the fire rating. >> how long has this construction been. >> in litigation recently concluded and getting that construction. >> when was the litigation final. >> i believe it was months or a year. >> within the last 6 months. >> one of most no work has been done in of months. >> i know their objecting a new architect to move forward. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holders. >> ms. canter anything more to

add? >> good evening yeah. it is an interesting point you bring up on the overhead this is the house that the appellants house is black stuff is a liquid applied membrane petroleum based over 4 years and what was shown that the inside of the building has no sheetrock it is not only an ice eye soar but some of the issues we've worked with a structural engineer and found a successful way to do this by

reenforcing the structure typically in san francisco many of the architects have experience with that by way of nobody here a paid consultant my friends come out and support me time and times again, it is a tremendously long journey and offering their professional advise i try to do projects the best way i can for the community and also would not benefit us to totally level a house we have to do that within our means i'm the sort of guy when it comes to construction i'll set up a preconstruction with a dbi inspector do you see any issues and working closely working closely with the city to do a

job properly all the other ordinances have been brought up time and time again pointless to talk about them again but maybe susan wants to say a few words >> i wanted to say one person waited four and a half hours wouldn't wait but felt bad she couldn't deliver her speech appreciate you guys so one thing to add we went through two full days of hearing improvements california superior court everything under the sun was argued the judge as i understand the order 14 packages she as i understand after every single chart we've exhausting done this i have the order if

you want to see this okay. >> the public document. >> do they have to accept it. >> no, not fair to the other party if they don't have a copy. >> okay. >> okay. thank you very much. >> anything more in the department mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. >> be brief and correct the record i think when the permit holder i i don't we don't have problems with that permit that is properly issued we have problems with the issues raised in the appellant brief one of the issues this will be requiring a demolition permit there's no understanding the 317 when a project is subject to 317

their rome part the building and it is actually still treated as a altercation by the building inspection so planning department has a 39 demolitions and have additional demolition existence in article 10. preservation matter so this is not the best system and not the place to deal with that the issue was raised on the property think clifford that project i don't know all the details i pulled it up now obtained a document under 317, demolish something that is defective as dry rot not counting towards the calculations there was a permit

that was submitted and not something that flew under the radar but the appellant put up under the overhead i think the permit was properly issued the permit holder didn't show a brief but the presentation was excellent and went through the project i worry about i had the experience of an architect >> is that a 4 star. >> anything mr. duffy. >> commissioners i don't have much to add but the occasion on the buildings the gentleman spoke earlier the architect the preconstruction meeting was important for the dbi they'll support the walls as they go

along and no the accidents i like the thinking to have the meeting with dbi so he's entitled to that inspection and should do that and in regards to the items missing off the application i agree with the appellant we asked all applications are reviewed thoroughly it is i think we can work and working closely with the m i is i spoke with sylvia and find. >> way to get the missing information added to the type construction or dpw he saw a dpw approved it and they'll see the driveway altercation that should

be taken of he agree. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i haven't changed any mind i still don't agree what the variance however, this technical issue under a very large well-staffed department the department of building inspection they can deal with this i'm not prepared to add any further constraints on the permit holder. >> i second that i think those challenges are premature this permit was properly issued. >> i'm not going to be so nice after 3 years on the board we have a thank call serial permit

this is serial this family has been bullied i mean, i it is a gross misuse of progress and the city resources so i strongly feel that. >> make a motion to motion to deny the appeal uphold the permit it was prove or disprove issued. >> on that motion then from the president to deny the appeal and you would it was properly issued by commissioner president fong e commissioner vice president fung commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries and commissioner honda's there's no further business. >> thank

>> power it's all around us in the sun and the winds and caves waves power that lights our homes while protecting our natural resources clean power will provide power to san franciscans how about works right now our power is from pg&e from non-renewable systems that comes over pg&e maintained lines with clean power your energy about think generated by caesarean more renewable sources come to our home e.r. businesses to the pg&e lines

>>