owner of record and appellant sam hom. architect for the appellant, van t. ly and associates. action required by appellant, the appellant is requesting more time to have architect of the required permits. >> good morning, members of the board. chief housing inspector. 1299 arguello blvd. is a five- unit building with a plea or guest rooms on three floors of occupancy. at issue is a notice of violation that was issued in january 2011 regarding a set of stairs that is a second means of egress for one of the units. as you can see from the staff report, we have worked with this particular property owner and we did not schedule it for the directors hearing until the following march, march 2012. at that point in time, the structure was significantly deteriorated and have a significant done over to it with new materials without any bread -- building permit. indeed, a building permit was not filed until july 3 of this year. 18 months after the notice of violation was issued we have a building permit filed not yet issued, going through the process. we're happy to see that, but the prop

appellants state the eir faiiled to mitigate near-term impact from air quality. the draft eir identified mass' pollutants as an unavoidable impact. the impact was identified as single begin to even though air quality resources are regulated. and back -- regulations require the use of best available control technology. this is because the extent to which he missions achieved -- emissions reductions achieved with these regulations are not known at this time. we still considered this impact to be significant and avoidable no additional mitigation measures are necessary to make the requirement enforceable. it is a regulation that the project has to comply with. appellants state the final eir emissions is incomplete. this is inaccurate. the eir

by the same appellant raising the same questions. last year, the board considered appeals to the eir. the board upheld the eir. since last year's hearing, the appellant challenged these approvals before the superior court. the court found the city did not preapproved the project in violation of ceqa. the eir is adequate and the conditional use permit was appropriately issued by this body. the same questions about consistency with the general plan that you dealt with was raised by the appellant this week. they also raised questions with regard to the environmental review. it was clear at that point that the board was having their patients tested with this appellant. [laughter] supervisor campos ask for a financial reimbursement of the city's time. we learned that this could not be done. the permit was issued unanimously. there were no new items introduced at the board meeting. the housing trust fund when before the rules committee yesterday. the mayor's office presented -- this is a proposed charter amendment. the housing trust fund c

appellants argued that additional mitigation should be required. the cities qualified ghd reduction strategy for the qualified plan meets the requirement because this plan was reviewed and they concluded that ghg reduction strategy meets the craig terry. iteria. is this my? i'm sorry. >> is your 15 minutes. thank you very much. i am sure there will be questions. i will start the conversation. so in the appellants appeal, they spend a lot of their time talking about transit issues. i wanted to talk about that for a few minutes. there are 4 categories of transit issues. we know this is a quarter that is already significantly congested. every day you can go down during rush hour -- some of the contract. we know that with this cathedral project, we are expected to see 20,000 person trips per day which are 20,000 net new wtrips. the appellants to raise the fact that your traffic analysis shows that you will have higher traffic volumes but less delay. i am trying to understand that. if you look at intersections like kate and market, franklin and sutter,

we will start with the appellant. she has seven minutes to present her case. >> [inaudible] >> i am putting up a picture of the three trees the are referring to. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i am the appellant, merle easton. i am an architect. the design exam always has a site plan with significant trees. those to cut down the trees, i have a hard time passing this test. i have spent most of my working life trying to save significant trees. by legal definition, the three mature ficus trees on columbus and lombard are significant trees in -- affirmed in the eir application and three disclosure statement of september to a dozen aids. you can see exhibit a in the appellant brief. we are requesting a fair independent public process to evaluate the three ficus trees and compliance with the urban forestry ordinance in article 16 of the san francisco public works code. our appeal is all about these trees. these help the mature and beautiful trees can be retained. he either as part of a new open space -- either as part of the

thank you. >> and final speaker on behalf of the appellants. >> good evening, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the national union of health care workers. we represent 750 service and maintenance employees of that tree cpmc campuses north of market street. i want to thank you for your attention to the difficult issues before you. and i want to try to simplify perhaps, oversimplify the choice for use specific to your ruling on the eir appeal. there really are two questions. one is are there serious flaws in a eir? i think you have heard ample testimony that the answer is yes. there's a traffic analysis that includes incorrect factors and fails to ask critical questions. there is a housing analysis that is similarly lacking core data necessary to make a judgment whether the work force housing needs are being met appropriately in the project. there are narrow project objectives that to not look at a number of other, broader concerns of the city but take their cue from sutter and cpmc' s business plans. there is an unrealistic project alternative, 3a, that was set up to fail

to speak on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. we will hear from the planning department who have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their certification of this environmental impact report. we will hear from the real party in interest. we will hear from person speaking on behalf of the real party in interest and finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. unless there are any opening comments or any questions or objections to proceed, supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you. golden gate park sits in district 1 but i know it is a treasured resource that belongs to all of us and everyone in san francisco. as a supervisor i have been following this process for several years now and it is one that requires us to look carefully with the appellants at to ocean edge and the richmond community association, the golden gate park preservation alliance and others. their attorney as well. a really well respected environmental attorney. balancing strong concerns

last year, the same appellant raised the same questions. you considered both the ceqa appeal and the conditional use. the board resoundingly up healthy eir and it reissued the conditional use authorizations. since last year's hearing, the appellant has kept up and taken the matter and challenges your approval before the superior court. in april of this year, they in its entirety. the court found that the eir is adequate and the conditions the u.s. permits were properly issued. that included the termination of this project is a consistent with the plan. our staff reviewed consistency findings. that was part of the

last year, the same appellant raised the same questions. you considered both the ceqa appeal and the conditional use. the board resoundingly up healthy eir and it reissued the conditional use authorizations. since last year's hearing, the appellant has kept up and taken the matter and challenges your approval before the superior court. in april of this year, they in its entirety. the court found that the eir is adequate and the conditions the u.s. permits were properly issued. that included the termination of this project is a consistent with the plan. our staff reviewed consistency findings. that was part of the cu application. this project is consistent with the general plan. unless there is some significant reason why the project has changed and subdividing a project does not change a project. we know you have a three-unit building carrying it is currently apartments. that does not change the fact of the intensity of the development or the height of the development. we do not even consider a partnership when we are revealing something fo

the appellate seems to be making -- excuse me. i already got that. it appears from the appellants brief that the restaurant group is undertaking a collective effort to stop mobile food permits at spear street, and on the basis of the previous stated argument and on the dpw approval of the mobile food facility permit, we request that the board of appeals denied the appeal and uphold the permit in its entirety. thank you very much. president hwang: in terms of deer permits, it is for your food cart to be in front of 60 spear street, right? >> it is the federal reserve parking lot gate, it is the back entrance to the federal reserve. president hwang: you would be located between the walgreen's and the federal reserve? >> yes. president hwang: i think i know what you mean, thank you. >> d.o. currently operate at other locations? -- do you currently operates at other locations? you mentioned the howard street location, do you operate there now? >> yes. 400 howard. i believe it is 2.5 blocks away. >> how often? >> thursdays and fridays. my proposal was to

i am counselor for the appellant. the rincon center is all present tonight, and let me just tell you know the restaurants are. you are familiar with them. the catering, mediterranean cuisine, soma chicken, rincon grille, the cheese steak shot, thai to go, and rincon market, and others, and the property management is also present and in support of the appeal. they are here this evening. one overriding concern i would like to draw to your attention, while briefly addressed, primarily, rincon grill, they would like you to take note of the fact that these restaurants are all part of the food court/retail concept, and they are there to promote a food court eating establishment, and it just goes against the whole theory of that to put competing restaurants in the same food court, and our position is the food trucks here is so close, and the menu is so similar that it destroys that concept, and that is why all of the restaurants are participating in this appeal. i would like you to direct your attention to our exhibit four,

action requested by appellate: to reverse the order of abatement. >> good morning. i am the attorney for the owner of the property. i am here to ask for a continuance of six months. this matter is being handled through the courts. we have gone through arbitration. there has been an interim order issued by the judge gunn monday. that would require us to go back to the judge for refinement on the details of the award. that will probably also require us to submit new plans, which we anticipate will take several months. we think, realistically speaking, a six-month continuance would allow our client to hopefully complete the project. but it is in the works. we are getting closer to resolution. >> i would like to hear if staff has any objections to that. >> we came this morning with the intention of not recommending any continuances, but having heard this, we would concur with that. >> i just want to clarify there are no life safety hazards, have the department clarify that. >> so the order from the court is about who is responsible for doing the work? could you explain

but we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> this is more than i needed. >> this is the solution i gave them to solve the problem. it is 10 ft. 3 high, they chose not to show on the plans because you don't need a gate or a landing or a deck. there are four houses in a row, this is the next house, they are pretty much identical homes and it does not have a gay. in this house has a gate on the front. it is causing all this problem, and this is the last house. the only one that i think needs of gay that causes them to build a gate on our side. they have chosen not to take a solution that would solve this issue. they have filed a building permit. this is the permit they have filed. i will try to go through the defects. a put a valuation of $5,000 to raise a building 36 inches and built downstairs. 750 square feet of hubble space for $5,000. they said that the owner is going to be the contractor. if you say you're going to be an owner builder, you have to build that. they think they thought they were raisin

we will start with the appellant, and you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i would first like to ask, did you receive a letter from supervisor avalos this afternoon? this is a series of e-mails that are going back and forth. there have been e-mails. i never met him before tonight. he has had several attorneys. most of the e-mails deal with issues, but there was 1 e-mail i received on tuesday morning, and i need to read this into the record. >> feel free to read this into the record as part of your presentation. >> it takes up part of my seven minutes. >> i am starting the time. >> i have been before this board. i never received any e-mails i have been opposite and this board. if it started with an e-mail with mr. roberts introducing himself as the attorney. representing himself as the attorney. he wanted to know if we could discuss the issues, and my appellants brief clearly stated what the issues were regarding the neighborhood. secondly, i received an e-mail about receiving the brief by e- mail. i reluctantly said yes because i did not realize it was going

any questions to the appellant? supervisor wiener: a couple of things. i made a comment before about the ceqa standard about feasible alternatives. it is possible i misheard you but i want to make sure i understand your position on that aspect of ceqa. i heard you say that if there is a feasible alternative that is less impeccable, the city is required to go with that alternative, is that what you are saying? >> yes, supervisor. there is the preservation action council vs. san jose. if there is an alternative that would reduce projected impact and if that is found to be feasible, the lead agency must adopt the alternative. the city has taken a different legal position. i think they are legally wrong. >> let's say we are talking about the -- a playground, a large playground and we have five different sites we're evaluating and they're all feasible. it is all possible to put them there in a reasonable way. but if the city in consultation with community groups and going through an entire process has a strong desire and the community has a strong desire to s

the appellants states and the r.r.'s analysis is inadequate, acknowledging the uniqueness of the project site and subjective nature of the aesthetics. they prepared nighttime visual simulation and performed an analysis of my time views. it included the project will not have a substantial adverse affect on the scenic vista. it will continue to be screened for most public use in the area. the eir concluded the project will not create a source of goler that would adversely affect views in the area. the nighttime lighting would not result in spillover light thing that would affect homes. the eir does not state the lighting will not be noticeable. the appellate states it miscalculates human health risks. the eir relies on a number of studies to assess potential risks. many of the studies were commissioned by the municipalities in an effort to assess the synthetic turf. it is insulation and dermal contact with products that were found to be less than significant. no new issues were raised. the hybrid alternative would increas

the appellant has listed a variety of arguments. i would like to go back to the beginning and reiterate the facts. the subject property is located in a single-family zoning district. the adjacent property is a duplex. it was constructed pre-1900. the adjacent property was vacant save for a garage. it does show an auto brides -- garage. garage -- that is what we are relying on we are making our determination. at the time, the properties were under one ownership. from 1971, they were under single ownership. it appears that in 1982, there was a parking easement. that parking for the units, one parking spaces was provided on the property of 69 montezuma. when the permit was submitted in 1984, the plans referenced this easement. it makes reference, it also has a curved cuts. -- curb cut. that was reviewed by the department of building inspection. the permit was subsequently issued. there was discussion in the late 1980's with the then zoning administrator about changing the easement. he said a variance would be required. it was very clea

that is the appellant. other than grumpy's, the closest restaurant is subway, which has marketing power on its own. four hundred 27 feet away. from there, it is not a matter of 310 feet. it is a matter of 400 feet, 500 feet, 600. fog city diner. that is a long way in san francisco. if trucks are hurting you, you have a bigger problem than the trucks that are there at lunchtime two days a week. this is, you can see the density of office-commercial spaces. there are three circles. the one in red is the area where we chose to locate. you can also see other locations where we have identified there is similar identity. this is the similarity density of food and beverage in the other areas. as you can see, we perceive this and the customers perceived this to be an underserved area for food and beverage which is why we chose to locate there. the appellant mentioned that britain mortar restaurants have a number of costs. so do mobile food vendors. they have to be certified under the state of california to have thei

then we go to the appellate division and the appellate division sustains the decision below the holtzman election is not set aside, the victory is not set aside and the rooney victory is not set aside. so that's the second level. then we go to the court of appeals which is the highest court in the state. i think i'm sort of home now. i won in the court which is the most political below. i won in the appellate division which is not that political. but you know. now i'm in the court of appeals which should be the least political court over the circumstances here. and at the same time, i'm winning rooney is winning and lowenstein is losing, too, which i sort of expected. if i can win. so i'm now in the court of appeals and we're sitting there arguing in the court of appeals this major case although i'm fairly confident. i have an argument planned out obviously along the lines i argued earlier before. and the first case they hear is the lowenstein-rooney case. and lowenstein's lawyer gets up to argue that elections should be set aside which is contrary to the position i'm going to take in th

we will have three minutes from the appellant for rebuttal. unless there are any questions, we will proceed in this way. unless there are any opening comments, why do we not hear from the appellant? >> good evening, mr. president. members of the accord. it has been quite an evening news. i will see a bank i can make my comments relatively short. i am here regarding the tentative map that was issued. i am here for the neighbors. i am appearing on behalf of steve williams to representing neighbors in this matter. we are appealing this on two reasons. the approval of the tentative map is not consistent with the general plan. it violates ceqa. let me go into both of those. the san francisco general plan mandates that new construction and is in existing neighborhoods. the tentative map that was approved in this issue is approved under the state map act. that requires consistency with general local plants. there is no consistency with the general character of the neighborhood. what i am specifically talking about is we are talking about inserting an

president hwang: we will start with the appellant. because there are to bring appeals, you will have 14 minutes -- two appeals, you have 14 minutes. >> my name is pete ryan. thank you for your time this evening. we are here tonight because you granted our request for jurisdiction when there was a mistake and we did not get notice of the permit and therefore we are here as though we got notice. we think that in addition to the initial mistake, we are going to be asking that you revoke it this evening. there is no dispute that it is within the 300 foot radius and off the grid takes the position that it is considered by agreeing not to serve hamburgers but they are permitted to sell hamburgers. those permits should not be granted because it is an identical food and it is within 300 feet. the fact they asked you to truck them, they will be good citizens. it is irrelevant. the permit should not be granted to that basis. however, as you know, among the 35 food trucks connected to these permits, there is direct menu competition as well. they